3* 

"     4    2f*'    AJ^^ex 


0     i--^'' 


1/ 

United  Presbyterian  Tracts ;  No.  21. 


COMMJJNidN,- 


'C«L  StVi^ 


We  aim  to  establish  the  following  propo- 
sition, viz : 

*'  The  Church  should  not  extend  commun- 
ion in  sealing  ordinances  to  those,  who  refuse 
adherence  to  her  profession  or  subjection  to 
her  government  and  discipline — or,  who  re- 
fuse to  forsake  a  communion  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  profession  that  she  makes." 

In  treating  of  any  controverted  subject,  it 
is  important  and  even  indispensable  that  we 
should  carefully  "  distinguish  between  things 
which  differ."  For  want  of  this  many  mis- 
takes and  misapprehensions  have  occurred — 
and  nowhere  more  frequently  than  on  this 
subject  of  communion.  There  is  no  more 
common  fallacy  of  reasoning  than  that  which 
is  styled  in  logic  the  ^'  undistributed  or  am- 
biguous middle  term  "  of  argument — that  is, 
applying    what  is    admitted    or    proved    in 


2  Communion. 

regard  to  a  term  or  phrase  taken  in  one  sense, 
to  the  same  term  or  phrase  taken  in  a  very 
different  sense,  without  notinj^;  the  transition 
from  one  meaning  to  the  other.  Thus  in  re- 
gard to  this  subject  of  communion,  the  fail- 
ure to  observe  the  distinction  between  the 
term  fellowship  when  applied  to  the  Church 
visible  and  when  applied  to  the  Church  in- 
visible, or,  in  other  words,  between  Christian 
communion  and  Church  communion,  or  eccle- 
siastical fellowship — has  been  the  fruitful 
source  of  errors  and  mistakes,  and  the  cause 
of  much  fruitless  and  even  bitter  contro- 
versy. Certain  it  is  that  the  want  of  observ- 
ing this  distinction  has  exposed  our  Church 
and  its  position  on  this  subject  to  much  un- 
merited odium  and  reproach.  We  have  been 
stigmatized  as  bigoted,  narrow-minded,  illib- 
eral, exclusive,  as  unchurching  and  unchris- 
tianizing  all  other  denominations  and  their 
members,  because  we  refuse  to  admit  them  to 
our  communion,  or  to  join  with  them  in  the 
communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Now  we  propose  to  show  that  the  principle 
which  we  have  enunciated  is  one  which  every 


Communion.  3 

church  deserving  of  the  name  is  bound  in 
consistency  to  carry  out,  and  which  is  prac- 
tically carried  out  almost  universally  by 
every  particular  church,  and  that  the  depart- 
ures from  it  are  only  occasional  and  very 
rare,  and  hence  manifestly  exceptional.  And 

First.  AVhat  is  the  communion  here  re- 
ferred to  ? 

Answer.  It  is  not  Christian  communion, 
or  the  communion  of  Saints — for  this  is  that 
fellowship  which  ought  to  exist  and  does  ex- 
ist among  all  Christians  by  virtue  of  their 
union  to  Christ,  their  common  Head,  by  the 
indwelling  of  his  Spirit,  which  cannot  be  in- 
terrupted by  denominational  distinctions  or 
separations,  by  distance  of  time  or  place, 
and  which  can  neither  be  limited  or  regulated 
by  ecclesiastical  law,  but  is  regulated  by 
Christ  himself,  who  admits  to  or  excludes 
from  it,  according  to  his  own  omniscience  of 
the  state  and  frame  of  the  individual  wor- 
shiper. Evidently  the  communion  referred 
to  in  our  article  is  not  internal  but  external — 
not    Christian,  but    Church    fellowship — for 


4  Communion. 

this  latter  is  the  only  subject  of  ecclesiastical 
regulation.     But 

Secondly.     What  is  meant  by  the  Church  ? 

Answer.  (1)  Not  the  invisible  Church, 
which  is  "  composed  of  all  the  elect  who  have 
been,  are,  or  shall  be  gathered  into  one,  un- 
der Christ  the  Head,"  whether  in  heaven  or 
on  earth  ;  between  whose  members  a  constant, 
uninterrupted  communion  is  maintained  in- 
dependent of  all  human  organizations  or 
regulations.     But  evidently 

(2.)  It  is  the  visible  Church  which,  in  the 
language  of  our  confession,  '*  is  composed  of 
all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess 
the  true  religion,  together  with  their  chil- 
dren." Nor  is  it  of  that  communion  among 
the  members  of  this  visible  Church  which 
consists  in  their  common  observance  of  the 
same  ordinances  of  worship  or  in  the  mutual 
interchange  of  the  offices  of  love  and  benefi- 
cence as  they  have  opportunity.  This  is  the 
communion  of  which  the  Confession  of  Faith 
treats  in  chapter  xxvi.  sec.  2,  and  which  it 
is  there  declared,  and  I  suppose  will  be  ad- 
mitted by  all,  *'  should  be  extended,  as  God 


Communion.  6 

offereth  opportunity,  unto  all  those  who  in 
every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus."  (See  the  passages  of  Scripture 
quoted  in  proof  of  this  section.)  There  can 
therefore  be  no  discrepancy  between  the 
Confession  and  this  article  of  our  testimony, 
because  they  relate  to  two  entirely  different 
subjects.     For 

Thirdly.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
communion  referred  to,  relates  to  the  visible 
Church  in  her  present  divided  condition,  and 
not  to  the  Church  Catholic,  or  Universal 
Church,  as  she  is  represented  and  contem- 
plated in  the  New  Testament,  organically 
one  in  the  profession  of  the  truth,  as  she  ex- 
isted in  her  first  organization,  and  as  we 
believe  she  will  ultimately  exist  during  the 
Millennium.  Whether  this  divided  state  of 
the  Church  is  right  or  wrong,  or  whether 
any  particular  denomination  has  a  right  to 
exist  as  a  separate  organization,  does  not 
enter  into  the  present  inquiry.  We  have  a 
right  to  assume,  and  we  do  assume  in  our 
proposition  in  reference  to  our  own  Church, 
that  we  are  justified  in   maintaining  an  or- 


6  Communion. 

ganization  separate  from  other  branches  of 
the  true  or  Catholic  Church  of  Christ — and 
so  we  suppose  other  denominations  assume 
regarding  their  organizations.  This  question 
of  communion  is  not  peculiar  to  us  as  a  de- 
nomination, but  belongs  to  every  denomina- 
tion or  separate  Church  to  settle  ;  and  which, 
as  we  shall  see,  every  Church  does  determine 
and  regulate  by  principles  and  rules  peculiar 
to  itself  as  a  distinct  organization,  as  one  in 
some  respects  independent  of  every  other. 

The  communion,  therefore,  of  which  we 
speak,  is  that  external  fellowship  in  the  ob- 
servance of  sealing  ordinances,  particularly 
the  Lord's  Supper,  which  in  the  present  divid- 
ed state  of  the  visible  Church  nicty  he  extend- 
ed or  ivithheld^  according  to  the  distinctive 
rules  and  regulations  of  each  denomination. 

This  communion,  our  declaration  states, 
should  not  be  extended  by  the  Church,  by 
any  Church,  to  two  classes: 

1.  To  those  *'  who  refuse  adherence  to  her 
profession,  or  subjection  to  her  government 
and  discipline ;"  that  is,  who  refuse  to  be- 
come members  of  the  Church — those  who  are 
not  members. 

2.  To  those  "  who  refuse  to  forsake  a 
communion  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
profession  which  she  makes;"  that  is,  who 
are  members  of  other  churches  from  which 


Communion.  t 

she  maintains  a  separation,  in  keeping  up  a 
distinct  organization  in  the  same  place  at  the 
same  time. 

The  first  relates  to  the  terms  of  admission 
to  membership  in  the  Church — the  second, 
to  the  question  of  inter-commuriion  or  occa- 
sional communion  between  the  members  of 
different  denominations — two  very  distinct 
and  different  questions,  and  yet  closely  con- 
nected— both  being  determined  and  settled 
on  the  same  principles.  Thus  it  appears 
that  our  proposition  contemplates  the  present 
divided  state  of  the  Church  as  an  existing 
fact,  and  simply  declares  what  is  the  duty  of 
any  Church  under  these  circumstances,  if  she 
would  be  faithful  to  and  consistent  with  the 
principles  of  her  own  organization.  The 
whole  question  goes  back  to  and  involves  the 
right  or  duty  of  our  branch  of  the  Church  to 
separate  or  continue  separate  from  other 
branches  which  are  regarded  as  Evangelical, 
that  is,  true  Churches  of  Christ ;  if  the  lat- 
ter can  be  justified,  then  the  maintaining  of 
a  separate  communion  in  the  ordinance  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  follows  as  a  necessary 
consequence.  The  two  statements  in  the 
declaration,  therefore,  though  separate  and 
distinct  in  themselves,  become  one  in  reality 
— the  latter  being  included  in  the  former — 
and  so  may  be  considered  as  one. 


8  Communion. 

The  simple  proposition  then  which  we  are 
called  on  to  prove,  is  that  the  Church  is 
bound  to  Confine  the  communion  in  sealing 
ordinances  to  its  members  ;  which  in  the 
present  divided  state  of  the  Church,  requires 
each  denomination,  so  long  as  it  remains  sep- 
arate from  other  evangelical  denominations, 
to  restrict  its  communion  to  its  own  member- 
ship. This  is  the  principle  of  restricted  or 
close  communion,  as  it  is  called,  as  main- 
tained by  our  Church,  and  the  whole  of  it. 
It  will  be  seen  that  this  principle  differs  ma- 
terially from  that  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
which  in  effect  unchurches  all  other  denomi- 
nations by  refusing  to  recognize  their  mem- 
bers as  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
On  the  contrary,  while  recognizing  other 
branches  of  the  visible  Church  as  true 
Churches  of  Christ,  we  yet  claim  the  right, 
and  even  duty,  of  maintaining  a  separate 
organization  in  the  same  place  and  at  the 
same  time,  and  so  of  maintaining  a  separate 
communion. 

BADGE    OF    MEMBERSHIP. 

First.  Because  admission  to  sealing  ordi- 
nance in  any  church  is  the  distinctive  badge 
of  membership  in  that  church.  Now  I  sup- 
pose it  will  be  admitted  by  all,  that  any  rite 
or  privilege  which  is  the  highest    privilege 


Communion.  9 

and  distinctive  badge  of  membership  in  any 
society,  ought  to  be  restricted  to  the  mem- 
bers of  that  society.  If,  therefore,  admission 
to  sealing  ordinances,  particularly  the  Lord's 
Supper,  be  regarded  as  the  distinctive  priv- 
lege  and  badge  of  membership  in  the  Church, 
then  it  follows  that  this  privilege  ought  to  be 
restricted  to  the  members  of  the  Church. 
That  it  is  so  regarded,  appears  from  the  all 
but  universal  practice  of  our  voluntary 
Churches.  In  State  Churches,  it  is  true — 
or  in  places  where  Church  and  State  are 
united — it  is  not  possible  for  the  Church  to 
preserve  this  distinction  between  her  own 
members  and  those  who  make  no  profession 
of  religion ;  but  even  then  the  members  of 
the  parish  are  admitted  to  the  communion 
table  because  they  are  regarded  as  members 
of  the  Church — the  parish  and  the  Church 
being  co-extensive.  In  this  country,  -how- 
ever, where  the  Church  is  free  to  exercise  its 
spiritual  authority  for  the  admission  or  ex- 
clusion of  members,  and  among  the  Free 
Churches  of  Europe,  the  fact  of  admission  to 
membership  or  exclusion  from  it,  either  per- 
manently or  temporarily,  is  indicated  by  ad- 
mission to,  or  exclusion  from,  the  Lord's 
Supper.  This  is  the  well  recognized  distinc- 
tion between  the  Church'  and  the  world — 
between  those  who  simply  attend  church  and 


10  Communion. 

the  members — between  adherents  and  com- 
municants. When  any  afe  received  into 
membership  in  any  Church,  they  are  recog- 
nized as  such  by  admission  to  sealing  ordi- 
nances ;  and  when  any  are  excluded  or  sus- 
pended from  membership,  they  are  thereby 
excluded  from  the  Lord's  Supper — thus 
plainly  showing  that  communion  in  this 
ordinance  is  regarded  as  the  distinctive  badge 
and  highest  privilege  of  membership  in  any 
Church,  and  ought  to  be  and  practically  is 
extended  only  to  those  who  profess  adher- 
ence to  the  Church's  profession  and  subjec- 
tion to  her  discipline — that  is,  to  her  mem- 
bers. 

But  further,  this  communion  in  sealing 
ordinances  is  not  only  a  distinction  between 
those  who  are  and  those  who  are  not  church 
members,  but  also  between  different  denomi- 
nations or  churches.  Hence  it  is  a  common 
thing  to  designate  any  particular  branch  of 
the  church  as  a  communion,  referring  evi- 
dently to  the  communion  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per ;  as,  for  example,  the  Methodist  com- 
munion, the  Presbyterian  communion.  This 
recognizes  the  fact  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
not  only  a  Christian  ordinance,  and  as  such 
common  to  all  Christian  churches,  but  also, 
in  an  important  sense,  an  ecclesiastical  or 
church  ordinance,  in  which  is  exhibited  not 


Communion.  11 

only  the  difference  between  the  church  and 
the  world,  but  also  between  the  different 
branches  of  the  visible  church  itself.  Each 
denomination  claims^  and  exercises  the  right 
of  admitting  to  or  excluding  from  it,  accord- 
ing to  its  own  particular  rules  of  government 
and  discipline,  even  while  admitting  that  it 
is  the  Lord's  table  ;  and  all  that  we  plead 
for  is  the  impartial  and  consistent  applica- 
tion of  these  rules  of  discipline  to  those  out- 
side, as  well  as  to  those  inside  of  her  pale  ;  in 
other  words,  restricting  her  communion  to 
her  own  members.  Any  other  course  than 
this,  if  followed  out  to  any  extent  (which, 
thanks  to  men's  logic  being  stronger  than 
their  theories,  it  is  not),  would  be  subvers- 
ive, not  only  of  all  discipline,  but  even  of 
the  church's  organization  itself  as  a  distinct 
denomination.  For  if  a  church  does  not 
apply  her  rules  of  discipline  or  admission  to 
her  communion  in  the  Lord's  Supper  to  those 
outside  of  her  own  pale,  ihen  she  ought  not 
to  apply  those  same  rules  to  those  within — 
to  her  own  members.  To  do  so  is  to  make  a 
discrimination  ao;ainst  her  own  members,  and 
in  favor  of  members  of  other  churches  ;  and 
thus  it  might,and  doubtless  often  does,  occur  in 
the  practice  of  intercommunion  or  occasional 
communion,  that  persons  are  at  one  time 
excluded  from  the  Lord's  table  by  the  appli- 


12  Communion. 

cation  of  the  rules  of  discipline  of  a  partic- 
ular church  to  them  as  members  of  that 
church,  and,  at  another  time,  those  same 
persons,  or  others  like  them,  are  invited  and 
admitted  to  that  communion,  because  they 
belong  to  another  evangelical  denomination 
— a  most  absurd  inconsistency.  For  exam- 
ple, a  church  which  disciplines  its  own  mem- 
bers, or  excludes  them  from  its  fellowship  at 
the  Lord's  table  for  rum-selling,  slave-hold- 
ing, or  even  promiscuous  dancing,  will  cor- 
dially invite  the  same  persons  to  her  com- 
munion table  when  they  are  members  of 
another  church  whose  rules  do  not  exclude 
these  practices.  As  long,  therefore,  as 
churches  maintain  separate  communions,  ad- 
ministered according  to  each  one's  distinctive 
rules,  the  only  impartial  and  consistent  course 
is  that  which  we  advocate,  and  which  as  a 
general  rule  is  followed  by  almost  all 
churches :  to  restrict  communion  in  sealing 
ordinances  to  their  own  members.  And  if 
this  is,  and  ought  to  be,  the  general  rule, 
there  is  nothing  either  in  reason  or  Scripture 
to  justify  an  occasional  departure  from  it, 
unless  in  cases  where  the  circumstances  are 
so  extraordinary  as  to  place  them  outside  of 
all  rules.  We  have  hitherto  been  reasoning 
on  the  supposition  that  separate  organiza- 
tions involve  separate  communions,  a  suppo- 


CO-MMUNIOX.  13 

sition  ^Yhich  all  practically,  if  they  do  not 
theoretically,  admit.  We  say  all^  for  the 
idea,  sometimes  broached  and  attempted  to 
be  carried  into  effect,  of  establishing  a  kind 
of  universal  church  or  communion,  in  which 
all  evangelical  denominations  could  unite 
while  still  retaining  their  separate  organiza- 
tions, is  only  the  dream  of  a  disordered  im- 
agination, or  unionism  run  mad,  and  is  not 
likely  to  meet  with  very  general  acceptance 
among  right-thinking  people.  Thus  we  have 
shown  that  the  communion  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  the  highest  privilege  and  the  dis- 
tinctive badge  of  membership  in  any  church, 
by  the  acknowledgment  and  practice  of  all 
churches  in  admitting  to  or  excluding  from 
it  according  to  each  one's  own  rules  of  dis- 
cipline, and  that  the  impartial  and  consistent 
carrying  out  of  this  principle  would  limit  the 
communion  in  each  church  entirely,  as  it  is 
now  generally,  to  its  own  members. 

COMMUNION    IN    A    JOINT    PROFESSION. 

Secondly,  the  communion  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  ought  to  be  restricted  by  each  church 
to  its  own  members,  because  this  communion 
includes  in  it  a  public,  joint  adherence  to  the 
same  profession  of  faith,  and  subjection  to 
the  same  rule 'of  obedience  on  the  part  of 
1^' 


14  Communion. 

those  who  unite  in  the  observance  of  this 
ordinance — which  can  only  be  truthfully 
done  by  the  members  of  the  same  church. 

We  have  already  seen  that  there  is  in  this 
ordinance  not  only  Christian  communion,  but 
also  church  fellowship.  The  former  takes 
place  only  ^mong  believers — is  founded  on 
their  union  to  Christ,  and  so  partaking  of 
the  same  body  and  blood  (I  Cor.  x:  16)  by 
the  same  faith,  is  invisible,  and  regulated 
only  by  Christ  himself.  The  latter,  and  the 
one  of  which  we  speak,  is  that  external, 
visible  fellowship,  which  all  who  unite  in  the 
observance  of  this  ordinance,  whether  true 
believers  or  not,  have  with  each  other  in  their 
joint  profession  of  faith  in  Christ  and  obedi- 
ence to  him.  All  communion  is  founded  on 
agreement.  This  joint  profession  must  have 
some  common  standard  of  faith  and  duty,  in 
which  all  are  agreed  or  united.  What  is  that 
standard  ?  Does  any  one  say  it  is  the  Word 
of  God,  which  contains  the  doctrine  and  law 
of  Christ  to  be  believed  and  obeyed  ?  Ad- 
mitted. But  the  question  arises,  Is  it  that 
Word  as  interpreted  by  each  individual,  or 
as  interpreted  by  the  Church  ?  If  it  is  the 
private  interpretation  of  each  individual,  thea 
there  is  no  communion,  for  there  is  no  com- 
mon standard  of  agreement.  It  must,  there- 
fore, be  that  public  and  authoritative  inter- 


Communion.  15 

pretation  of  the  Word  of  God  by  the  Church 
in  her  standards  and  Book  of  Discipline 
which  constitutes  the  bond  of  union  among 
her  members,  and  so  the  common  standard 
of  agreement.  That  visible  fellowship  or 
communion  which  the  members  of  the  Church 
have  with  each  other  in  the  ordinance  of  the 
Supper  consists  in  and  is  measured  by  their 
agreement  in  the  same  public  profession  of 
their  faith  and  subjection  to  the  same  rule  of 
duty,  whichs  as  we  have  said,  can  only  be 
the  declared  profession  and  discipline  of  the 
Church  administering  the  ordinance.  Hence 
this  communion  can  only  be  extended  by  the 
Church  to  her  own  members — who  only  can 
consistently  and  honestly  unite  in  this  public 
profession.  To  extend  it  to  *'  those  who 
refuse  adherence  to  her  profession,  or  sub- 
jection to  her  discipline,  or  who  refuse  to 
forsake  a  communion  which  is  inconsistent 
with  that  profession,  would  be  so  far  to  dis- 
turb that  communion  and  make  it  impossible. 
The  question  is  not  whether  there  is  agree- 
ment in  their  private  views  and  feelings 
among  those  who  sit  down  to  the  same  table 
— for  that  is  known  only  to  God — buf  wheth- 
er there  is  agreement  in  their  public  profes- 
sion. If  there  is,  and  that  public  profession 
is  the  recognized  profession  or  standard  of 
the  Church,  then  only  those  who  can  honestly 


16  Communion. 

join  in  that  profession  can  consistently  join 
in  tiie  observance  of  that  ordinance  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  the  badge  of  membership 
in  any  particular  church  or  communion.  As 
this  is  an  important  point,  let  us  examine  it 
a  little  more  closely.  The  question  arises, 
Is  there,  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  the 
Church,  a  public  profession  of  adherence  to 
and  agreement  in  the  standards  of  the 
Church  in  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per?— or  is  it  simply  a  profession  of  the  fact 
that  they  are  Christians — believers  in  Christ 
— that  is  made  in  this  ordinance  ?  If  it  is 
only  the  latter,  then  all  who  are  recognized 
as  Christians  are  entitled  to  this  privilege, 
and  must  be  admitted  and  invited  to  partici 
pate  in  the  observance  of  this  ordinance 
whenever  and  wherever  administered.  This 
is  the  position  taken  by  the  advocates  of 
Catholic  communion.  The  plan  is  that  this 
is  the  Lord's  table,  to  which  all  his  children 
have  a  right  because  they  are  his  children, 
and  to  refuse  any  one  w^ho  is  recognized  as  a 
Christian  is  to  deny  him  that  to  which  he  has 
a  right.  It  is  confidently  affirmed  that  the 
Church  has  no  right  to  exclude  any  whom 
Christ  himself  admits  to  his  table.  This 
sounds  specious,  and  is,  in  fact,  the  principal 
— we  might  almost  say  the  only — argument 
in  favor  of  Catholic  as  opposed  to  restricted 


Communion.  17 

communion.  But  when  examined  closely  it 
will  be  found  to  have  only  the  appearance  of 
soundness.  It  can  only  be  consistently  main- 
tained and  carried  out  by  confounding  or 
denying  the  distinction  between  the  visible 
and  invisible  Church — between  Christian  and 
Church  communion — and  is  in  fact  main- 
tained and  carried  out  only  by  those  who 
adopt  what  is  called  the  Pui'itan  theory  of 
the  Church.  Here  I  shall  quote  from  an 
author  who  elsewhere  advocates  open  or 
Catholic  communion,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  suspected  of  prejudice  in  favor  of  our  po- 
sition on  this  subject.  I  quote  from  Hodge's 
Theology,  voL  3,  page  543  and  onward.  The 
quotation  is  somewhat  condensed,  but  pre- 
sents his  views  fairly  :  '•  The  answer  to  the 
question,  What  are  the  qualifications  for 
adult  baptism,  or  (what  is  the  same)  admis- 
sion to  the  Lord's  table  ?  resolves  itself  into 
the  question,  What  are  the  qualifications  for 
church  membership  ?  The  answer  to  that 
question  it  is  evident  must  be  determined  by 
the  views  taken  of  the  nature  and  preroga- 
tives of  the  Church.  Now  there  are  three 
generic  views  of  the  Church. 

*'  The  first  is  the  Romish  theory,  derived 
from  the  ancient  Theocracy,  and  from  the 
analogy  between  the  Church  and  a  civil 
commonwealth,  viz.,  that  all  born  within  its 


18  Communion. 

pale  are  i'pso  facto  its  members,  and  entitled 
to  all  its  privileges,  its  sacraments  and  ordi- 
nances— not  in  virtue  of  their  character,  but 
in  virtue  of  their  birthright.  This  theory 
obtains  not  only  in  Catholic  Countries,  but  in 
all  those  countries  in  which  Church  and  State 
are  so  united  that  the  head  of  the  State  is 
also  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  where 
membership  in  the  Church  is  a  condition  of 
citizenship  in  the  State.  This  is  the  case  in 
Prussia,  was  the  case  for  centuries  in  Eng- 
land, and  is  so  to  a  great  extent  to  this  day. 
Every  Englishman,  unless  he  voluntarily 
makes  himself  an  exception,  has  a  right  to 
all  the  services  of  the  Church."  I  suppose 
there  are  few  in  this  country  among  the 
evangelical  churches  who  would  plead  for 
admission  to  the  Lord's  table  accordino-  to 
this  theory — allow  the  State  to  prescribe  the 
qualifications  for  admission  to  this  privilege 
of  church  membership.     But 

2.  ''  The  second  general  theory  of  the 
nature  of  the  Church  is  that  which  for  con- 
venience sake  may  be  called  the  Puritan  " — 
which  prevails  among  the  Independents  and 
Congregationalists.  "  According  to  them 
the  visible  Church  consists  of  the  regenerate, 
and  it  is  the  duty  and  prerogative  of  the 
Church  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  question 
whether  the  applicant  for  admission   to  the 


COMMUNIOxNf,  19 

sacraments  is  truly  born  of  God."  In  refer- 
ence to  this  theory  Dr.  Hodge  justly  re- 
marks, that  ''  as  Christ  has  not  fijiven  his 
people  the  power  to  search  the  heart,  he  has 
not  imposed  upon  them  the  duty  which  im- 
plies the  possession  of  any  such  power." 
Therefore,  he  adopts  the  third,  or  what  he 
calls  the  common  Protestant  theory,  which 
is  expressed  in  the  Westminster  Standards, 
and  which  we  have  already  quoted,  viz. : 
"  That  the  visible  Church  consists  of  all  those 
who  profess  the  true  religion,  together  with 
their  children,"  and  on  it  makes  this  remark  ; 
''The  common  Protestant  doctrine  is  that 
nothing  authorizes  us  to  refuse  a  man  admis- 
sion to  the  Church  which  would  not  justify 
his  exclusion  if  already  a  member  of  it," 
And  the  difference  between  this  theory  and 
what  is  called  the  Puritan  theory,  is  just  the 
difference  between  Catholic  and  restricted 
communion.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Hodge  : 
"  According  to  the  one  view  the  Church  is 
bound  to  be  satisfied  in  its  judgment  that  the 
applicant  is  truly  regenerate.  According  to 
the  other,  no  such  judgment  is  expressed  or 
implied  in  receiving  any  one  into  the  fellow- 
ship of  the  charch  " — that  is  to  the  sacra- 
ment or  communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Now,  if  this  be  the  true  theory  of  the  Church, 
as  we  believe  it  is,  and  if  it  be  true  that  "as 


20  Communion. 

Christ  has  not  given  his  people  the  power  to 
search  the  heart,  he  has  not  imposed  upon 
them  the  duty  which  implies  the  possession 
of  any  such  power,"  and  if  it  he  so  that  in 
receiving  an  applicant  to  the  fellowship  of 
the  Church  in  the  Lord's  Supper  no  judg- 
ment is  expressed  or  im,pUed  in  regard  to  his 
being  "truly  regenerate,"  (that  is  a  true 
Christian);  then  it  follows  that  the  church 
cannot  admit  to  or  exclude  from  its  privileges 
on  the  ground  of  a  man's  state  as  regenerate 
or  unregenerate,  but  only  on  the  ground  of 
his  external  character  and  profession,  of 
which  alone  she  is  competent  to  judge.  It 
is  true,  there  is  an  important  sense  in  which 
none  but  Christians,  the  truly  regenerate, 
have  a  right  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  that  all 
God's  children,  in  this  sense,  have  that  right. 
But  it  is  a  right  in  foro  Dei — in  the  pres- 
ence or  judgment  of  God — which  Christ 
alone  can  decide,  and  which  he  does  decide. 
This  is  a  matter  of  which  the  individual 
him.self  is  the  sole  judge  at  the  bar  of  con- 
science, and  all  that  the  Church  can  do  is  to 
press  the  injunction  of  the  apostle  on  all 
applicants  for  this  privilec;e.  Let  a  man  ex- 
amine himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  this 
bread,  and  leave  the  responsibility  of  decid- 
ing with  the  individual.  For  the  Church  to 
decide  that  a  man  is  a  Christian,  and  so  ad- 


Communion.  21 

mit  him  to  the  Lord's  table,  implies  the  power 
to  decide  that  he  is  not,  and  so  exclude  him, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  express  prohibition 
of  Christ  in  the  parable  of  the  tares,  and  also 
to  his  own  example  in  admitting  Judas  to  all 
the  privileges  of  the  other  disciples  as  long 
as  his  outward  character  and  conduct  was 
consistent  with  his  profession.  That  which 
the  Church,  therefore,  can  judge  and  deter- 
mine respecting  those  whom  she  receives  to 
her  communion,  and  the  only  thing  which 
she  can  determine,  is  competency  of  knowd- 
edge,  soundness  of  profession,  and  correct- 
ness of  character  and  walk,  which  go  to  make 
up  a  credible  outward  profession  of  faith  in 
Christ  and  obedience  to  him.  And,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  the  only  standard  by 
which  this  judgment  can  be  made,  is  the 
Word  of  God  as  she  understands  and  inter- 
prets its  teachings  in  her  standards  of  doc- 
trine, worship  and  discipline.  The  conclu- 
sion, therefore,  follows,  by  an  irresistible  in- 
ference, that  those  who  sit  down  to  the  same 
table  in  any  church  do  unite  in  a  professed 
igreement  in  the  public  profession  of  that 
church  as  agreeable  to  and  founded  on  the 
Word  of  God  so  far  as  they  have  attained  to 
the  knowledge  of  that  word,  and  that  the 
Church  not  only  has  a  right,  but  is  bound  to 
limit  this  privilege  to  those   who   adhere  to 


22  Communion. 

her  profession  and  are  subject  to  her  disci- 
pline, or  to  her  own  members.  In  affirming 
this  we  do  not  claim  that  all  who  are  warrant- 
ably  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  or  to  the 
privilege  of  church  membership,  have  an  in- 
telligent understandincr  and  belief  of  all  the 
principles  of  the  Church's  profession  ;  for 
many,  perhaps  the  most  of  them,  especially 
when  first  admitted,  may  be  but  weak  in  the 
faith  and  knowledge  of  the  Gospel.  But  so 
far  as  they  know  and  understand  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Word  of  God  they  are  agreed  in 
the  profession  of  their  faith  and  do  not  reject 
or  oppose  any  of  the  principles  of  the 
Church's  profession.  There  is  a  great  differ- 
ence between  those  who  are  weak  in  the  faith 
and  those  who  determinedly  oppose  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Church's  profession,  or  who 
refuse  to  forsake  a  communion  that  is  incon- 
sistent with  that  profession.  The  one  we  are 
to  receive,  the  other  we  cannot  and  ought  not 
to  admit  to  our  fellowship. 

Thus  then  it  appears,  tbntin  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per as  administered  by  any  particular  Church, 
besides  the  Christian  communion,  which  is 
enjoyed  by  them  as  believers,  there  is  an  ex- 
ternal, visible  fellowship  on  the  part  of  all 
those  who  join  in  its  observance  as  a  church 
ordinance,  which  consists  in  their  agreement 
in  a  common  public  profession,  which  can  be 


Communion.  23 

no  other  than  that  profession  which  the 
Church  makes  as  a  distinct  organization  sep- 
arate from  other  branches  of  the  Church.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  this  communion  can 
only  be  extended  to  its  own  members,  be- 
cause they  only  can  truthfully  and  consist- 
ently join  in  this  public  profession.  But  it 
is  in  the 

CHARACTER    OF   THE    CHURCH    AS    A    WITNESS 

that  all  the  arguments  for  restricted  com- 
munion meet  and  terminate.  It  is  only 
when  this  distinctive  characteristic  and  con- 
sequent obligation  of  the  visible  Church  as  a 
witness  for  the  truth  is  lost  sight  of  or 
ignored,  that  the  plea  for  Catholic  or  occa- 
sional communion  acquires  any  force  or 
plausibility. 

8.  We  argue,  therefore,  that  communion 
in  sealinor  ordinances  ouo-ht  to  be  restricted 
by  the  Church  to  its  own  members,  because 
in  no  other  way  can  she  be  faithful  to  her 
obligation  as  a  witness  for  the  truth  of  Christ. 

That  this  character  belongs  not  only 
to  individual  Christians  who  are  called  mar- 
tyrs or  witnesses,  but  to  the  Church  as  one 
organized  body,  will,  I  suppose,  scarcely  be 
denied. 

That  this  is  the  main  distinctive  object  and 
design    of  the    organization    of    the    visible 


24  Communion. 

Churcli  appears  from  the  name  given  to  her 
in  the  singular  number,  "  the  light  of  the 
world,"  ''  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth." 
For  it  is  by  holding  up,  and  "holding  forth 
the  word  of  life,"  as  a  witness  for  the  truth 
of  God  in  her  public  profession  or  testimony, 
that  she  acts  as  the  light  of  the  world — as 
the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  The  same 
thing  appears  from  the  character  given  the 
disciples  of  Christ  as  soldiers,  whose  duty  it 
is  to  "fight  the  good  fight  of  faith,"  to  "  war 
a  good  warfare,"  to  "contend  earnestly  for 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

There  is  a  great  battle  going  on  in  the 
world  between  truth  and  error — between  right 
and  wrong — between  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
and  the  kingdom  of  Satan  ;  and  in  this  con- 
flict, Christ,  as  her  Divine  Head  and  Leader, 
employs  his  Church  in  her  visible  organiza- 
tion as  his  army  for  overthrowing  the  king- 
dom of  Satan,  and  establishing  his  kingdom 
in  the  earth.  The  weapons  of  this  warfare 
are  not  carnal,  but  spiritual,  the  truth  of 
God,  which  is  "  mighty  through  God  to  the 
pulling  down  of  the  strongholds  of  error  " 
and  sin,  and  the  establishment  of  "  righteous- 
ness and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost," 
in  the  hearts  of  men  and  so  in  society.  This 
weapon  she  wields  in  her  organized  capacity 
as  a  witness,  not  only  for   the   preservation 


Communion.  25 

but  also  the  propagation  of  the  truth  by  her 
public  testimony  in  its  behalf  and  against  the 
contrary  error  and  sin.  And  so  it  is  said  of 
these  martyrs  or  witnesses,  that  "  they  over- 
came by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  and  the  \Yord 
of  their  testimony  " — that  public  joint  testi- 
mony in  which  they  all  united,  and  which 
they  sealed  with  their  blood,  not  '^loving  their 
lives  unto  the  death."  But  this  point  is  so 
plain  we  need  not  dwell  upon  it.  The  only 
question  is,  how  far  does  the  obligation  ex- 
tend ?  To  what  extent  is  the  Church  to  bear 
witness  to  the  truth  ?  To  this  I  think  only 
one  answer  can  be  given — 

1.  In  general,  to  the  whole  truth  as  she 
attains  to  the  knowledge  of  it.  The  commis- 
sion given  to  the  Church  runs  in  these  words, 
"  Go,  disciple  all  nations,  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you."  There  are  those  who  main- 
tain that  the  Church's  testimony  should  be 
limited  to  those  fundamental  articles  of  faith 
and  principles  of  duty  which  are  essential  to 
salvation,  in  which,  therefore,  all  Christians 
can  unite.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  obliga- 
tion of  this  duty  of  the  Church  must  be  co- 
extensive with  the  reason  and  ground  of  it. 
This  reason  or  ground  is  the  divine  authority 
which  extends  equally  to  all  things  whatso- 
ever he  has  commanded  to   be  received  and 


26  COMMUNLON. 

observed — to  the  least  as  well  as  the  great- 
est. So  says  Christ,  Matt.  v.  19,  "Whoso- 
ever therefore  " — and  this  applies  to  the 
Church  as  well  as  to  individuals — "  shall 
break  one  of  these  least  commandments  and 
shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  least  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven;  but  whosoever  shall 
do  and  teach  them  " — that  is  the  least  as 
well  as  the  greatest — "  he  shall  be  called 
great,"  etc.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  it  is 
not  the  importance  of  any  principle  to  the 
salvation  of  the  soul,  which  constitutes  the 
reason  or  measures  the  force  of  the  obligation 
of  a  witness  in  bearing  testimony,  but  sim- 
ply that  it  is  a  part  of  the  truth  or  law  of 
Christ  on  which  his  authority  is  stamped,  and 
which  is  recognized  by  the  Church  as  a  part 
of  that  truth  or  law.  Every  principle  of  God's 
Word  may  not  be  equally  important  to  be 
known  and  believed  in  order  to  salvation  ; 
but  we  may  safely  affirm  that  every  principle 
of  that  Word,  when  known  and  acknowledged 
to  be  of  divine  authority,  is  of  equal  import- 
ance to  the  integrity  of  the  system  and  to 
the  honor  of  Christ,  and  therefore  of  equal 
obligation  to  be  received  and  maintained  by 
the  Church.  Indeed,  those  truths  and  prin- 
ciples, which  in  themselves  are  regarded  as 
of  minor  importance,  may  by  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Church  become  the  prominent 


Communion^  21 

and    pre-eminent   ones    in    her    testimony. 
Which  leads  me  to  remark 

2.  That  the  Church  is  to  be  a  witness  es- 
pecially for  the  present  truth — that  is  the 
truth  which  is  now  opposed  and  denied,  and 
which  becomes,  therefore,  in  an  eminent 
sense,  the  "word  of  Christ's  patience."  The 
most  important  point  for  the  time  to  be  main- 
tained and  defended,  is  the  point  attacked. 
The  most  important  part  of  a  witness'  testi- 
mony is  that  which  bears  upon  the  point  at 
issue,  so  the  most  prominent  part  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Church  or  any  particular  church 
for  the  time,  is  that  part  of  the  divine  truth 
or  law  which  is  at  present  assailed  or  denied 
— and  the  greater  and  more  extensive  the 
opposition,  the  greater  is  the  obligation  of 
Christ's  witnesses  to  be  faithful  to  him  and 
his  cause  in  that  particular.  Matters  of 
doubtful  disputation  ought  not  to  be  admitted 
into  the  Church's  testimony  ;  for,  these  being 
matters  of  indiiference  which  are  not  clearly 
revealed  in  the  Word  of  God,  or  mere  mat- 
ters of  opinion  and  human  authority,  do  not 
involve  the  authority  of  Christ  or  the  honor 
of  his  name.  But  whenever  a  principle  is 
acknowledged  by  the  Church  to  be  a  truth 
of  Christ,  or  an  evil  exists  which  is  admitted 
to  be  a  violation  of  his  law  as  she  under- 
stands it,  then  the  fact  that  the  one  is  denied 


28  Communion. 

and  the  other  defended,  even  by  men  and 
churches  sound  and  right  in  other  things', 
does  not  render  those  points  matters  of 
''doubtful  disputation  " — to  be  dropped  out 
of  sight  and  eliminated  from  the  testimony 
of  the  Church — but  as  every  one  can  see, 
renders  the  obligation  to  maintain  and  defend 
the  truth  and  oppose  error  and  evil  more  im- 
perative on  those  who  would  be  faithful  to 
and  ^'  stand  up  for"  Jesus.  So  our  fathers 
in  Scotland  and  England  regarded  the  mat- 
ter in  the  17th  century  when  they  refused  to 
conform  in  what  might  be  regarded  as  points 
of  minor  importance  respecting  church  gov- 
ernment, but  suffered  the  loss  of  station  and 
property,  and  even  life  itself,  rather  than 
compromise  the  rights  of  Christ's  crown  and 
covenant.  And  who  will  say  that  they  were 
not  justified  in  their  course,  even  though  the 
points  involved  are  still  matters  of  dispute 
among  Christian  men  and  churches  ?  The 
fact  is  that  this  principle  is  so  well  recog- 
nized by  all  the  churches  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, that  it  has  found  practical  expression  in, 
and  given  ground  or  occasion  for  most,  if 
not  all,  the  denominational  divisions  Avhich 
at  present  exist  in  the  Protestant  Church. 
Which  leads  me  to  remark 

3.  That  the  only  way  by  which  the  Church, 
or  any  particular    church,    can   maintain    a 


Communion.  29 

faithful  and  consistent  testimony  in  behalf  of 
any  truth  or  law  of  Christ,  is  by  making  it 
a  term  of  communion.  As  already  intimat- 
ed, many,  if  not  most,  of  the  present  divi- 
sions among  Protestant  evangelical  churches 
— ^just  as  the  Protestant  Church  itself — origi- 
nated in  the  felt  obligation  resting  on  those 
who  wished  to  be  faithful  as  witnesses  for 
Christ,  to  separate  from  those,  who,  though 
they  were  recognized  as  belonging  to  the  true 
Church  of  Christ,  yet  had  corrupted  or  per- 
verted the  truth  of  God  in  doctrine  or  wor- 
ship. The  very  design,  therefore,  of  their 
organization  as  a  distinct  and  separate  branch 
of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  so  maintaining 
a  separate  communion,  was  as  faithful  wit- 
nesses to  preserve  and  maintain  the  princi- 
ples of  truth  and  duty  thus  denied.  On  this 
principle  have  acted  dissenters  of  all  kinds, 
whether  Baptists,  Methodists  or  Presbyte- 
rians;  and  this,  their  felt  obligation  to  be 
faithful  as  witnesses  for  the  truth  and  law  of 
Christ,  is  the  only  thing  which  warrants  or 
justifies  such  separation  and  its  continuance, 
without  which  they  would  be  self-condemned 
as  schismatics.  Now  in  order  to  carry  out 
the  design  of  their  separate  organization, 
and  to  justify  their  position  and  their  right 
to  exist  as  a  distinct  branch  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  each  of  these  bodies  finds  it   ne- 


30  Communion. 

cessary  to  set  forth  the  principles  of  their 
organization  in  a  public  testimony  and  rules 
of  order  and  discipline  in  which  they  are 
embodied.  In  this  public  profession  all  the 
members  of  the  church  is  supposed  to  unite, 
as  it  is  the  testimony  of  the  church  as  a  body 
— composed  of  the  private  members  as  well 
as  the  officers. 

Now,  we  ask  :  How  can  a  church,  thus 
separated  from  others  by  the  very  design  of 
its  organization,  and  claiming  that  it  not 
only  has  a  right  to  exist,  but  is  bound  to 
maintain  its  separation  for  a  distinct  and 
definite  purpose — how,  we  ask,  can  it  make 
that  purpose  effective,  or  carry  out  its  design 
as  a  faithful,  consistent  witness  for  its  pecu- 
liar distinctive  principles,  without  making 
those  principles  terms  of  communion,  or,  in 
other  words,  requiring  those  whom  she  ad- 
mits to  the  highest  privilege  of  membership 
to  adhere  to  her  profession  and  to  be  subject 
to  her  discipline  ?  It  may  be  affirmed  with- 
out fear  of  successful  contradiction,  that 
when  a  church  ceases  to  make  any  article  of 
her  profession  a  term  of  communion,  she 
thereby  ceases  to  be  a  witness  for  that  prin- 
ciple. In  word  she  may  hold  to  it,  as  some 
churches  before  the  rebellion  held  to  the  evil 
of  slavery,  but  by  admitting  slaveholders  and 
their   apologists    to   their    communion    they 


Communion.  31 

practically  contradicted  and  denied  those 
public  utterances,  and  made  them  a  dead  let- 
ter— for  this  simple  reason,  that  actions  speak 
louder  than  words.  The  churches  of  Asia 
were  rebuked,  not  for  any  unsoundness  of 
profession,  but  because  they  had  among  them 
— allowed  in  their  communion — those  who 
held  and  taught  doctrines  and  practices  con- 
trary to  the  principles  of  their  profession. 
It  was  found  necessary  by  those  who  would 
not  be  partakers  of  the  sin  of  slavery  to  sep- 
arate from  the  communion  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  form  an  organization  styled  the 
Free  Church.  Now,  what  would  have  been 
the  value  of  their  professions  of  sincerity 
if  they  had  still  admitted  slave- 
holders and  those  who  abetted  the 
evil  to  their  communion  ?  What  value 
has  the  testimony  of  any  Church  against  in- 
temperance and  in  favor  of  temperance 
which  allows  rum  sellers  and  rum  drinkers  in 
her  communion,  whether  they  are  her  own 
members  or  members  of  other  evangelical 
churches  ?  What  would  be  the  value  of  our 
testimony  against  secret  societies  if  their 
members  were  not  excluded  from  our  com- 
munion ?  The  Church  is  not  responsible  for 
the  private  heresies  or  sins  of  those  admit- 
ted to  her  communion,  but  when  any  one  is 
known  to  hold  and  maintain  principles  and 


32  Communion. 

practices  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,  ac- 
cording to  her  profession,  whether  he  be  an 
officer  or  private  member,  she  becomes  the 
partaker  of  his  error  or  sin,  and  is  unfaith- 
ful to  her  own  profession  when  she  allows, 
and  as  long  as  she  allows,  him  in  her  com- 
munion at  the  Lord's  table.  Now,  supposing 
he  be  cut  off  and  excluded  from  her  fellow- 
ship and  goes  and  joins  another  branch  of 
the  Church  which,  as  a  body,  holds  and 
maintains  the  same  doctrines  and  practices, 
does  the  fact  of  his  becoming  a  member  in 
good  standing  in  another  Church  change  the 
character  and  effect  of  admitting  him  again 
to  her  communion,  and  make  it  different 
from  what  it  was  when  he  was  one  of  her 
own  members  ?  Every  one  can  see  the  in- 
consistency of  such  a  course.  The  only  way, 
therefore,  by  which  a  Church  can  make  her 
testimony  for  the  truth  of  her  profession 
practically  effective  is  by  excluding  from  her 
communion  those  who,  whether  as  individuals 
or  as  members  of  other  churches,  are  en- 
gaged in  a  stated  and  determined  opposition 
to  any  of  the  principles  of  that  profession. 
The  practice  of  discriminate  or  occasional 
inter-communion  tends  to  break  down  all  dis- 
cipline and  thus  nullify  the  effectiveness  of 
the  Church's  testimony  for  the  truth  and 
right,  and   against   error   and  wrong.     We 


Communion.  33 

conclude,  therefore,  as  we  begin,  that  "  the 
Church  should  not  extend  communion  in 
sealing  ordinances  to  those  who  refuse  ad- 
herence to  her  profession  or  subjection  to 
her  government  and  discipline,  or  who  re- 
fuse to  forsake  a  c^vmraunion  which  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  profession  which  she  makes." 

OBJECTIONS. 

It  may  be  asked,  Are  there  no  exceptions 
to  this  rule — no  cases  when  a  session  may 
admit  one  who  is  not  a  member  of  the 
Church,  or  who  is  a  member  of  another 
Church  ? 

We  answer  that  no  Church  can  make  pro- 
vision for  exceptions,  either  in  her  testimony 
or  rules  of  discipline,  without  constituting 
those  exceptions  into  a  rule.  The  very  fact 
that  they  are  exceptional  cases,  places 'them 
outside  of  all  rules — and  each  case  must  be 
decided  on  its  own  merits.  When,  therefore, 
a  session  in  the  exercise  of  that  discretion 
which  belongs  to  all  courts  in  the  application 
of  the  law  of  the  Church  decides  that  any 
particular  case  is  extraordinary  and  excep- 
tional, it  thereby  decides  that  it  is  outside  of 
the  rule,  and  so  one  to  which  the  law  is  not 
applicable.  But  no  session  or  any  other 
court,  not  even  the  General  Assembly,  has 
rightful  power  or  discretion  to  admit  a  case 


34  Communion. 

which  violates  or  is  inconsistent  with  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  organic  law  or  rule  of  the 
Church.  This  would  be  a  virtual  repeal  or 
nullification  of  the  law.  Such  we  believe  to 
be  the  true  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  de- 
liverance of  the  General  Assembly  at  Argyle 
in  1868,  which  is  so  often  quoted  as  releas- 
ing the  stringency  of  this  article  of  the  tes- 
timony. 

Again,  it  is  objected  that  in  heaven  we 
will  be  all  one,  and  commune  together  there ; 
and  why  not  here  ?  We  answer,  it  is  just 
because  we  are  not  come  to  heaven,  and  we 
are  not  one  in  our  views  and  beliefs,  which 
renders  the  present  separation  or  division  of 
churches  necessary. 

If  the  Church  were  what  it  ought  to  be 
and  what  it  eventually  will  be,  organically 
one  eVen  here  on  earth,  then  we  could,  as  we 
will  one  day,  all  sit  down  together  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  is  the  present  divided 
condition  of  the  Church  which  renders  this 
separate  communion  necessary. 

Other  objections  might  be  noticed,  but 
they  have  either  been  answered  in  the  fore- 
going discussion,  or  are  such  as  may  be  easily 
disposed  of  by  the  application  of  the  princi- 
ples there  laid  down. 

"We  have  thus  attempted  the  vindication  in 
this  article  of  our  testimony — not  by  appeal- 


Communion.  35 

ing  to  personal  or  partisan  considerations,  or 
by  denunciations  of  other  individuals  or 
churches,  but  by  an  appeal  to  principles 
which  are  universally  recognized  and  accept- 
ed as  applicable  to  all  churches,  assuming 
that  they  are  justified  in  maintaining  their 
separate  organizations.  And  we  humbly  and 
respectfully  submit  these  considerations  to 
the  candid  and  impartial  judgment  of  our 
brethren  in  our  own  Church  and  in  other 
churches  who  are  concerned  to  know  what 
faithfulness  to  the  cause  and  truth  of  our 
common  Master  requires  at  our  hands — 
whether  as'  individuals  or  as  churches.  May 
the  Lord  himself  own  his  truth,  and  pardon 
and  overrule  our  errors  and  mistakes  ;  and 
to  his  name  shall  be  the  praise. 


United  Presbytkriax  Board  of  Publication. 
55  Ninth  St,,  Piitsbxjrgh. 


CTnited  Presbyterian  Tracts,  No.  24. 


SECRET  SOCIETIES. 

The  Relation  and  Duty  of  the  Church  and 
her  Members  toward  them. 


It  is  proposed  to  establish  the  truth  of 
the  following  proposition,  viz :  *'  That  as- 
sociations formed  for  political,  benevolent 
or  other  purposes,  which  impose  upon  their 
members  an  oath  of  secrecy,  or  an  obliga- 
tion to  obey  a  code  of  unknown  laws  are 
inconsistent  with  the  genius  and  spirit  of 
Christianity,  and  church  members  ought 
not  to  have  fellowship  with  them." 

This  declaration  contains  a  statement  of 
principle,  and  an  inference  from  it :  the 
latter  following  as  an  irresistible  conse- 
quence from  the  former:  for  if  we  can 
show  that  these  associations  in  spirit  and 


2  Secret  Societies. 

workings,  are  inconsistent  with  those  prin- 
ciples of  God's  word,  which  Christians  uni- 
versally recognize  as  of  paramount  obli- 
gation, then  it  will  follow  that  members  of 
the  church — not  of  this  or  that  one,  but  of 
every  church,  ought  not  to  have  fellowship 
with  them.  And  if  Christians  can  but  be 
convinced  of  the  sinfulness  of  their  con- 
nection with  such  associations,  and  be  per- 
suaded to  sever  or  keep  aloof  from  all  such 
connection;  if  the  church  of  God  would 
but  use  her  influence  and  lift  up  her  testi- 
mony against  this  great  and  growing  evil 
of  secretism,  the  power  of  these  societies, 
for  evil,  would  be  so  weakened  as  to  excite 
little  alarm.  And  on  the  other  hand,  the 
presence  of  church  members  in  them,  and 
the  silent  indifference  or  active  encourage- 
ment of  the  church  of  God  regarding  them, 
is  that  which  gives  them  respectability  and 
constitutes  the  chief  part  of  their  strength, 
just  as  formerly  was  the  case  with  slavery 
in  this  land. 

The    church  cannot  afford  to  occupy  a 
neutral,    much    less     a     friendly    position 


Secret  Societies.  3 

towards  tliem ;  for,  if  they  belong  to  the 
"  unfruitful  works  of  darkness,"  as  I  think 
can  easily  be  shown,  then  she  is  bound  not 
only  "to  have  no  fellowship  with  them, 
but  rather  to  reprove  them."  If,  as  I  think 
will  be  evident  as  we  proceed,  they  belong 
to  the  world  that  lieth  in  the  wicked  one — 
the  god  of  this  world — then  they  are  the 
enemies  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  from 
which  she  is  bound  to  maintain  a  complete 
separation,  and  with  which  she  must  wage 
an  uncompromising  war.  And  what  is 
the  dut}^  of  the  church  is  the  duty  of  indi- 
vidual Christians. 

The  question  is  one  of  intensely  practi- 
cal importance,  and  nothing  can  be  more 
amazing  than  the  apparent  apathy  and  in- 
difference of  the  churches  generally  on  this 
subject,  as  formerly  on  the  subject  of  slav- 
ery, unless  it  be  the  impudence  and  arro- 
gance of  these  societies  in  claiming  recog- 
nition and  encouragement  and  at  the  same 
time  resisting  and  bitterly  resenting  all  in- 
vestigation and  judgment  of  the  character 
and  trutli  of  these  claims.     Indeed  the  very 


4  Secret  Societies. 

attempt  to  screen  themselves  from  public 
observation,  and  honest,  candid  investiga- 
tion, is  itself  a  confession  of  weakness  and 
is  the  old  cry  of  the  demons,  to  which  the 
enemies  of  Christ  and  truth  have  always 
resorted  to  stifle  inquiry,  saying,  "  Let  us 
alone,  what  have  we  to  do  with  thee,  thou 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  ?"  But  despite  all  these 
attempts  by  ridicule,  defamation,  and  even 
persecution  and  violence  to  stop  our  mouths, 
we  claim  the  right  in  the  name  of  the  Mas- 
ter, and  are  bound  in  faithfulness  to  Him — 
and  to  this  point  it  must  come  sooner  or 
later  with  all  the  churches,  to  inquire,  "Art 
thou  for  us,  or  for  our  enemies?" — "to  try 
the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God." 

Now,  in  the  pursuit  of  this  inquiry  it  is 
not  necessary  for  us  to  become,  members  of 
these  societies,  or  to  pry  into  what  they 
call  their  secrets  in  order  to  ascertain  their 
true  character.  We  need  only  to  examine 
the  principles  which  confessedly  underlie 
their  organization,  and  the  character  and 
tendency  of  their  legitimate  workings,  and 


Secret  Societies.  5 

show  that  these  are  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God. 
"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony  if  they 
speak  not  according  to  this  word  it  is  be- 
cause there  is  no  light  in  them."  Nor  is  it 
necessary  to  deny  that  there  is  anything 
good  in  these  associations,  or  to  assert  that 
all  of  them  are  equally  bad.  But  if  on  the 
whole  they  are  evil  in  their  tendency  and 
workings ;  if  there  are  some  things  neces- 
sarily belonging  to  all  of  them  which  are 
wrong  and  sinful ;  if  connection  with  any 
of  them  involves  the  Christian  in  acts  of 
at  least  doubtful  propriety,  and  closes  his 
mouth  asfainst  the  acknowleda;ed  evils  of 
the  more  dangerous  societies,  then  we  are 
warranted  in  drawing  the  conclusion  that 
Christians  ought  not  to  have  fellowship 
with  them ;  and  if  I  shall  succeed  in  per- 
suading a  single  one  of  my  fellow  Chris- 
tians, who  have  become  entangled  in  the 
snare  of  unholy  conformity,  to  break  that 
connection,  or  prevent  any  one  from  be- 
coming involved  in  such  connection,  I  shall 
feel  amply  rewarded.  I  appeal  to  your  un- 
derstanding, not  to  your  prejudiees;  to 
your  reason  and  conscience,  not  to  your 
passions.  "  I  speak  as  unto  wise  men, 
judge  ye  what  I  say." 


6  Secret  Societies. 

I.    Pkinciples  of  the  Organization. 

1st.  The  first  reason  I  ^ould  offer  why 
these  associations  are  inconsistent  with  the 
genius  and  spirit  of  Christianity,  is  that 
they  constitute  an  artificial  relation  of  fra- 
ternity or  hrotherliood^  the  ohligations  of 
which  are  inconsistent  with  the  duties  we  owe 
to  our  fellow  men  in  those  relations  luhich 
God  has  established  and  in  which  he  has 
placed  us. 

God  has  instituted  the  brotherhoods  of 
man  or  society,  of  the  family,  and  of  the 
church.  These  have  their  foundations 
either  in  the  nature  of  man,  or  in  his  rela- 
tion to  God  through  Christ.  The  obliga- 
tions of  these  relations,  the  family,  the 
church,  and  the  state,  are  divinely  imposed; 
are  neither  arbitrary  nor  voluntary  ;  which 
can  neither  be  assumed  nor  laid  aside  at 
pleasure.  Every  one  is  born  into  the  fam- 
ily, and  into  society,  and  even  when  joining 
the  church  (as  we  express  it,)  although  in 
one  sense  a  voluntary  act,  yet  he  thereby 
merely  recognizes  and  acknowledges  those 
obligations  which  every  one  owes  to  his 
God  and  Saviour.  These  relations  being 
thus  divinely  appointed  and  regulated,  are 
designed  and  adapted  to  move  on  together 


Secret  Societies.  7 

and  co-operate  harmoniously  like  the  plan- 
ets of  the  solar  system  in  their  several 
spheres,  their  duties  and  obligations  neither 
interfering  nor  conflicting  with  each  other. 
But  it  is  not  so  with  these  associations. 
The  relation  of  fraternity  which  they  form 
is  a  purely  artificial  one,  having  its  founda- 
tion neither  in  nature  nor  in  grace.  Cer- 
tainly it  is  not  of  Divine  institution,  and 
cannot  be  referred  to  any  of  those  natural 
or  gracious  relations  which  he  has  insti- 
tuted, the  duties  and  obligations  of  which 
are  imposed  by  purely  human  authority, 
self-assumed  and  self-imposed.  Hence 
arises,  and  must  necessarily  arise,  discord, 
corruption,  conflict,  just  as  if  a  new  planet 
were  introduced  into  the  solar  system  bv 
some  other  power  than  that  of  God. 

Here  is  a  relation,  a  brotherhood,  whose 
tie  cuts  right  across  all  other  relations,  en- 
ters the  family,  interfering  between  parents 
and  children,  husband  and  wife,  brothers 
and  sisters  ;  enters  society,  interferes  with 
its  various  relations  both  civil  and  social  ; 
enters  the  church,  coming  between  pastor 
and  people,  and  between  members  of  the 
same  church,  often  producing  alienation 
and  distrust  if  not  positive  discord  and 
conflict.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  member- 
ship   in    these    societies  need  not    conflict 


8  Secret  Societies. 

with  a  man's  duty  in  his  other  relations. 
In  the  very  nature  of  things  they  must 
conflict,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  all  know 
and  see  that  they  do  conflict  in  multitudes  of 
instances  ;  and  when  the  obligation  of  these 
societies  is  regarded  at  all  it  becomes  ne- 
cessarily paramount  to  all  others.  lostances 
might  be  given  illustrating  this  in  the  fam- 
ily (as  at  funerals),  in  the  state  (as  in  the 
case  of  judge  and  juries),  and  in  the  church 
(as  between  pastors  and  people.) 

To  this  principle  our  Lord  refers  when  he 
charges  the  Pharisees  with  making  void 
the  law  of  God  by  their  traditions.  They 
had  invented  an  artificial  relation  with  its 
appropriate  sign,  or  pass-word,  by  which 
they  undertook  to  set  aside  the  obligation 
of  children  to  their  parents.  The  law  of 
God  said,  Honor  thy  father  and  mother, 
and  whosoever  hateth  father  and  mother 
let  him  die  the  death;  but  ye  say,  "If  a 
man  shall  say  to  his  father  or  mother,  Cor- 
ban,  that  is  to  say,  it  is  a  gift  by  whatso- 
ever thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me,  he 
shall  be  free ;  making  the  word  of  God  of 
none  effect  by  your  traditions  :''  Marh^  7  : 
10-12.  Precisely  on  the  same  principle 
do  these  associations  come  between  those 
whom    God   hath  joined   together   in    the 


Secret  Societies.  9 

various  relations  of  life,  making  distinc- 
tions where  God  has  made  none  either  in 
nature  or  grace;  thus  producing  disturb- 
ance, unsettling  confidence,  and  introducing 
suspicion,  alier^tion,  strife.  Now,  while  it 
is  improper  for  any  one  to  enter  a  society 
which  does  or  may  conflict  with  the  duties 
he  owes  to  his  fellow  men  in  the  other  re- 
lations of  life,  it  is  especially  wrong  and 
inconsistent  for  a  Christian  to  do  so.  The 
very  principle  on  which  these  societies  are 
organized  is  that  of  caste,  and  their  obliga- 
tion requires  them  to  help  each  other  in 
preference  to  all  outside,  no  matter  how 
closely  connected  these  outside  ones  may 
be  otherwise.  I  do  not  say  that  this  obli- 
gation is  always  regarded  as  paramount, 
but  I  do  know  that  this  principle  of  favor 
itism  belongs  to  all  these  associations,  is 
avowed  by  them,  and  urged,  indeed,  as  one 
of  the  most  powerful  inducements  for  mem- 
bers to  join  them,  viz.:  the  superior  advan- 
tages to  be  enjoyed  in  various  ways  from 
the  patronage,  support  and  assistance  of 
their  fellow  members  to  which  they  are  all 
mutually  pledged.  I  do  know,  also,  that 
many  regard  their  obligation  in  this  light, 
and  treat  it  as  paramount  to  all  others.  A 
Presbyterian  elder,  when  asked  the  ques- 
tion,   if   two    men  claimed    his   assistance 


10  Secret  Societies. 

equally  needy,  the  one  a  Christian  or  fel- 
low member  of  the  church,  and  the  other 
a  fellow  Mason,  which  he  would  feel  bound 
to  prefer,  answered  without  hesitation, 
"  The  Mason."  Another  stated,  that  if  the 
claims  of  his  mother  and  those  of  a  brother 
Mason  came  in  conflict  he  should  feel  bound 
to  regard  the  latter  before  the  former ;  and, 
indeed,  this,  as  we  have  said,  seems  to  be 
the  natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  this 
pledge  of  brotherhood  and  mutual  help,  if 
it  have  any  obligation  at  all.  The  only 
way  in  which  the  Christian  can  maintain 
the  integrit}^  of  his  conscience  between 
these  conflicting  claims  is  by  treating  this 
artificial  obligation  as  a  nullity.  Now 
every  one  can  see  how  a  conscientious 
judge  or  juryman  sworn  to  administer  im- 
partial justice  between  the  parties  brought 
before  them  would  feel  himself,  to  say  the 
least,  embarrassed  by  his  relation  to  one  of 
them  as  a  member  of  the  same  fraternity. 
Has  an 7  one,  much  less  a  Christian,  a  right 
voluntarily  to  place  himself  in  a  relation 
the  obligation  of  which  he  must  either  dis- 
regard and  treat  as  a  nullity,  or  else  vio- 
late his  obligation  to  his  fellow  men  in  the 
other  relations  in  which  God  has  placed 
him.     Partiality,  favoritism,  the  making  of 


Secret  Societies.  11 

discriminations  among  men  on  the  ground 
of  fictitious  or  artificial  distinctions  which 
is  the  very  essence  of  these  associations,  is 
just  as  unwarranted  and  inconsistent  with 
the  spirit  of  Christianity  as  the  same  par- 
tiality would  be  unjust  and  unwarrantable 
in  a  judge  on  the  bench.  James  2  :  1,  2  : 
"My  brethren,  have  not  the  faith  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  glory,  with 
respect  of  persons.  For  if  there  come  into 
your  assembly  a  man  with  a  gold  ring,  in 
goodly  apparel,  and  there  come  in  also  a 
poor  man  in  vile  raiment;  and  ye  have  re- 
spect to  him  that  weareth  the  gay  clothing, 
and  say  unto  him:  Sit  thou  here  in  a  good 
place,  and  say  to  the  poor,  Stand  thou  there 
or  sit  here  under  my  footstool,  are  ye  not, 
then,  partial  in  yourselves,  and  are  become 
judges  of  evil  thoughts,  or  as  it  ought  to 
be  rendered,  ill-reasoning  judges?"  There- 
fore we  say  these  associations,  the  very 
principle  of  whose  organization  requires 
their  members  to  exercise  this  partiality 
towards  their  fellow  members  are  inconsist- 
ent with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  Christianitv. 
2nd.  The  second  reason  why  these  asso- 
ciations are  inconsistent  with  the  genius  of 
Christianity  is  because  the  obedience  which 
they  require  of  their  members  to  their  sui^eriors 


12  Secret  Societies. 

is  inconsistent  with  that  supreme  allegi- 
ance which  every  Christian  has  vowed  and 
owes  to  Christ. 

The  spirit  of  these  orders,  whether  re- 
ligious or  secular,  is  that  of  an  unmitigated 
despotism,  requiring  an  obedience  which  is 
implicit  and  unquestioning.  This  is  seen 
most  fully  in  the  society  of  Jesuits,  the 
prime  qualification  of  whose  members  is 
an  entire  subjection  of  their  will  to  that  of 
their  superiors ;  and  although  all  these  se- 
cret orders  do  not  go  to  the  same  length  as 
do  these  Jesuits,  or  even  the  Masons,  yet 
their  spirit  and  tendency  is  the  same,  and 
so  far  as  they  are  allowed  to  exert  their 
legitimate  influence,  the  effect  is  to  destroy 
all  independence  of  thought,  speech,  or  ac- 
tion on  the  part  of  their  members  and  ren- 
der them  passive  tools  in  the  hands  of  their 
superiors  or  the  orders  they  represent. 
This  is  symbolized  in  some  of  their  cere- 
monies, inculcated  in  their  lectures,  and 
expressed  in  the  subordination  of  the  vari- 
ous degrees  and  in  the  high-sounding  titles 
given  to  their  of&cers — Masters — Grand 
Masters — Most  Puissant  Potentate,  ka.  In- 
deed, obedience  to  the  Master  is  one  of  the 
cardinal  virtues  in  their  orders.  And  of 
their  power  to  exact  this  obedience,  when 


Secret  Societies.  13 

they  deem'  it  necessary,  let  the  abduction 
and  murder  of  Morgan  bear  witness ;  and 
also  that  intolerant  spirit  everywhere  man- 
ifested b}^  these  orders  which  aims  to  fetter 
the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  and 
which  prevails  to  muzzle  editors,  publish- 
ers, and  public  speakers,  and  even  the  min- 
isters of  Jesus  Christ,  most  of  whom  dare 
not  utter  their  own  convictions,  and  can 
hardly  call  their  souls  their  own.  Now, 
while  any  one  who  has  any  regard  to  his 
own  manhood  ought  to  scorn  to  place  him- 
self in  subjection  to  any  will  or  authority 
less  than  Divine,  it  is  specially  unworthy 
of  the  Christian,  who  as  the  Lord's  servant, 
is  free  from  both  the  doctrine  and  com- 
mandments of  men.  "  Ye  are  bought  with 
a  price,  be  ye  not  the  servants  of  men." 
"  Call  no  man  master,  neither  be  ye  called 
master,  for  one  is  j^our  Master  even  Christ." 
To  Him  every  Christian  owes  and  cheer- 
fully acknowledges  implicit  subjection — 
entire  and  unreserved  obedience.  He  only 
is  worthy  of  it  and  entitled  to  it,  because 
He  is  Grod;  nor  dare  any  Christian,  on  peril 
of  treason  to  his  Lord,  acknowledge  or 
promise  subjection  to  any  man  or  set  of 
men  only  in  the  Lord.  It  is  only  so  far  as 
they  represent  the  authority  of  Christ  that 


14  Secret  Societies. 

we  owe  obedience  to  our  superiors  in  the 
famijy,  the  state,  or  the  church.  Children 
are  to  obey  their  parents  in  the  Lord  for 
this  is  right.  Wives  are  to  be  in  subjec- 
tion unto  their  husbands,  as  unto  Christ. 
Citizens  are  to  obey  civil  magistrates  be- 
cause they  are  ministers  of  God.  The  pow- 
ers that  be  are  ordained  of  God,  and  we 
owe  this  obedience  not  only  for  wrath,  but 
also  for  conscience'  sake,  because  they  re- 
present the  authority  of  God  in  all  their 
lawful  commands;  and  even  in  the  church, 
Christians  are  under  obligations  to  those 
who  have  the  rule  over  them  only  in  the 
Lord,  that  is,  so  far  as  they  represent  the 
authority  of  Christ;  anything  else  than 
this  is  rank  popery,  culminating  in  the 
Jesuitical  dogma  of  papal  infallibility.  Now 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  the  subjec- 
tion which  membership  in  these  orders  in- 
volves is  worse,  more  inconsistent  with 
Christian  liberty,  than  popery  itself,  because 
the  priest  and  the  pope  have  some  shadow 
of  pretension  for  their  claims  to  implicit 
subjection  because  they  pretend  to  be  the 
vicars  of  Christ  and  to  represent  his  au- 
thority. But  where  in  all  these  orders  is 
there  even  a  pretense  of  representing  His 
authority?     Where  in  all  the  word  of  God 


Secret  Societies.  15 

has  he  given  them  authority  to  command 
my  obedience,  and  how  can  I,  consistently 
with  my  supreme  allegiance  to  him,  volun- 

'  tarily  place  myself  in  subjection  to  any 
such  usurped  authority,  or  promise  any 
kind  of  obedience  to  it,  when  it  is  not  and 
can  not  be  obedience  in  the  Lord?  Surely 
Christians  and  Christian  ministers  especi- 
ally, who  ought  to  be  so  jealous  even  of 
their  lawful  superiors  where  their  authori- 
ty infringes  upon  or  conflicts  with  that  of 
Christ,  must  see  that  in  joining  these  or- 
ders they  are  renouncing  their  allegiance 
to  him,  and  premising  subjection  to  those 
who  neither  pretend  to  represent  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  nor  can  ever  claim  obedi- 
ence to  any  of  their  behests  on  the  ground 
of  that  authority.  "And  no  man  can  serve 
two  masters,  for  either  he  will  hate  the  one 
and  love  the  other,  or  else  he  will  hold  to 

» the  one  and  despise  the  other."  If  there 
were  no  other  reason  than  this  one,  it  is 
sufficient  of  itself,  one  would  think,  to  con- 
vince any  conscientious  Christian  that  these 
associations  are  inconsistent  with  the  genius 
and  spirit  of  Christianity. 

3rd.  Because  the  morality  and  benevo- 
lence which  they  inculcate  and  j^f'cictice  are 
selfish  and  'partial^  and  so  incorisistent  luith 


16  Secret  Societies. 

the  genius  and  spirit  of  Christy  and  ought 
not  to  he  encouraged  or  patronized  hy  Chris- 
tians. The  whole  system  from  beginning 
to  end  is  just  a  system  of  organized  selfish- 
ness. Instead  of  being  governed  by  that 
royal  law  of  Christ :  "  As  ye  would  that 
man  should  do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  unto 
them,"  the  Christian  in  these  societies  finds 
himself  restricted  and  narrowed  down  to 
this  miserable  law  of  selfishness:  Do  to 
others  as  you  expect  them  to  do  to  you; 
which  is  the  rule  and  limit  both  of  their 
morality  and  benevolence,  so  called. 

(1.)  Their  morality  is  selfish  and  partial^ 
although  the  professions  which  some  of 
these  societies  make  of  being  the  special 
patrons  and  teachers  of  morality,  may  at 
first  sight  appear  plausible,  yet  when  we 
come  to  inquire  into  the  principle  which 
underlies  their  so-called  morality,  .it  will 
be  found  nothing  more  than  a  species  of  a 
personal  honor — a  somewhat  extended  kind 
of  selfishness,  fit  is  true,  they  inculcate 
friendship,  love,  and  truth,  and  oblige  their 
members  to  abstain  from  injustice,  wrong 
;'or  injury.  But  to  what  extent?  Toward 
,  all  men?  0,  no  !  only  toward  their  fellow 
members, — and  why  even  toward  tliem? 
Because    the    one   is  right  and  tlie   other 


Secret  Societies.  17 

wrong?  that  is,  required  or  forbidden  by  the 
law  of  God,  the  only  standard  of  true  mor- 
ality? O,  no!  for  this  would  require 
them  to  make  the  obligation  universal  and 
extend  it  to  all  men,  which  would  destroy 
their  very  character  as  exclusive  mutual 
aid  societies.  Take  for  illustration  the  Ma- 
sonic fraternity.  The  obligation  of  this 
order  requires  its  members  to  act  honestly 
and  uprightly  towards  their  fellow  mem- 
bers, and  to  abstain  from  injury  towards 
them  or  their  wives  or  sisters.  This  im- 
plies a  license  to  act  otherwise  towards  all 
others;  that  is  to  say,  if  they  are  restrained 
from  acting  unjustly  towards  others,  it  is 
from  some  other  principle  than  their  Ma- 
sonic obligation ;  such  injustice  and  im- 
morality does  not  affect  their  standing  in 
the  order,  nor  is  it  considered  or  treated  as 
a  breach  of  Masonic  obligation.  The  most 
dishonest  and  immoral  men  can  and  do 
maintain  their  standing  in  the  order,  pro- 
vided their  offenses  are  not  against  Masonic 
law.  What  is  this  but  a  species  of  world- 
ly honor,  and  no  more  deserves  the  name 
of  morality  than  that  honesty  which  may 
be  found  among  thieves  and  banditti. 

That  I  do  not  overstate  this  matter  let 
me  refer  to  an  instance  that  I  have  seen 


18  Secret  Societies. 

quoted  by  their  own  writers  as  an  illustra 
tion  of  the  superior  excellence  and  advan- 
tage of  the  Masonic  obligation;  and  many 
similar  instances  might  be  given  from  our 
own  rebellion  and  the  Sepoy  rebellion  in 
India.  A  pirate  captured  a  vessel  and  mur- 
dered all  its  inmates  except  two,  who  were 
Masons  as  he  was.  Here  was  one  who  con- 
sidered his  obligations  of  Masonic  morality 
limited  to  his  own  order,  and  whose  multi- 
plied crimes  of  fiendish  cruelty  did  not 
affect  his  standing  as  a  Mason,  so  long  as 
he  refrained  from  injuring  his  fellow  Ma- 
sons. Is  it  not  worse  than  a  misnomer  to 
call  such  conduct  by  the  name  of  morality, 
or  to  compare  it  for  a  moment  with  that 
universal  honesty  and  integrit}^  of  charac- 
ter and  conduct  which  the  gospel  of  Christ 
not  only  teaches,  but  produces?  "Teach- 
ing us  to  deny  ungodliness  and  worldly 
lusts  and  live  soberly,  righteously,  and 
godly,  in  this  present  evil  world,"  the  dis- 
regard of  which  in  regard  to  the  poorest 
and  humblest  human  being,  would  not  on- 
ly, if  known,  affect  the  Christian  standing 
of  the  most  eminent  minister  or  member  of 
the  church,  but  would  destroy  the  reputa- 
tion and  standing  of  any  church  which 
should  tolerate  such  an  one  in  its  member- 
ship for  an   hour.     And  yet,  I  repeat,  this 


Secret  Societies.  19 

is  the  extent  of  the  morality  which  the 
Masonic  order,  as  such,  (and  the  same  is 
true,  to  a  certain  extent,  of  the  others,)  in- 
culcates and  enforces— simply  and  solely 
the  morality  of  selfishness.  How  degrad- 
ing to,  and  unworthy  of,  the  Christian  to 
lend  the  sanction  of  his  name  and  influence 
to  any  such  caricature  and  fraud,  hy  which 
thousands  are  deluded  into  the  thought  and 
belief,  that  with  such  false  and  spurious 
morality  as  their  religion  they  can  be  as 
good  Christians  as  church  members,  and 
fitted  at  death  for  entrance  into  heaven,  or 
the  Grand  Lodge  above.  Surely  Christians 
instead  of  having  any  fellowship  with, 
ought  to  expose  and  testify  against  all  such 
miserable  pretences  as  dishonoring  to  Christ 
and  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men.  The 
same  substantially  may  be  said  of  their — 
(2.)  Benevolence  ;  which  like  their  mor- 
ality is  both  partial  and  selfish.  Many  of 
these  associations  claim  to  be  benevolent 
and  charitable,  even  above  the  church;  and 
there  are  some  Christians  who  are  base 
enough  and  silly  enough  to  echo  their 
claims,  not  only  inside,  but  outside  of  these 
orders.  Now,  whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
short-comings,  in  this  respect,  of  individual 
members,  or  even  of  the  church,  vet  we 
2 


20  Secret  Societies. 

dare  affirm  that  the  only  true  charity  and 
benevolence  that  is  found  in  the  world,  and 
even  in  these  orders  themselves,  is  due  to 
the  presence  and  influence  of  the  Christian 
religion,  and  that  what  goes  under  the 
name  of  benevolence  as  inculcated  and  re- 
ceived by  these  associations,  is  not  worthy 
to  be  compared  to  that  large-hearted  and 
universal  philanthropy,  and  active  benevo- 
lence which  Christianity  not  only  teaches 
but  produces  in  all  who  embrace  its  doc- 
trines. 

(a.)  Their  benevolence  is  limited  to 
their  own  members.  It  not  only  begins 
but  it  ends  at  home.  The  difference  be- 
tween it  and  true-  Christian  benevolence 
may  be  seen  in  the  parable  of  the  good 
Samaritan.  While  the  priest  and  the  Le- 
vite  who  found  the  man  that  had  fallen 
among  thieves,  passed  by  on  the  other  side, 
because  he  did  not  belong  to  their  order, 
the  good  Samaritan  stopped  to  ask  no  ques- 
tions, but  recognizing  a  brother's  claim  on 
his  sympathy  in  the  distress  of  a  stranger 
or  even  an  enemy,  he  "bound  up  his 
wounds,  pouring  in  oil  and  wine,  and  set 
him  on  his  own  beast,  carried  him  to  an  inn 
and  took  care  of  him."  And  the  injunc- 
tion with  which  our  Lord  closes  the  para- 
ble, "  Go  thou  and  do  likewise,"  stands  on 


Secret  Societies.  21 

record  as  a  withering  rebuke  to  that  nar- 
row-minded selfishness  which  stops  to  ask, 
"Who  is  my  neighbor,"  and  makes  tlie 
world-wide  difference  between  true  Chris- 
tian beneficence  and  that  charity  falsely 
so  called  which  is  confined  to  a  particular 
order  or  caste. 

Even  this  limitation,  however,  would 
not  be  so  blameworthy  if  the  doors  of  these 
orders  were,  like  those  of  the  church, 
opened  wide  for  the  admission  of  all  classes. 
But  it  is  not  so.  Most  of  them  exclude 
women,  minors,  the  aged,  the  poor,  lame, 
halt  and  blind,  those  who  are  not  able  to 
pay  their  dues,  or  have  no  visible  means  of 
support,  the  very  classes  that  are  likely  to 
become  objects  of  charity  ;  and  when  those 
who  are  members  cease  to  pay  their  dues, 
even  though  unable  to  do  so,  they  forfeit 
their  claim  on  the  assistance  of  the  order 
at  the  very  time  when  they  most  need  it. 
Thus  their  boasted  benevolence,  limited  as 
it  is  to  their  own  members,  dwindles  down 
into  a  simple  re-payment  of  what  has  al- 
ready  been  paid  for,  like  any  other  insur- 
ance policy,  and  that  at  a  very  dear  rate  of 
premium.  An  examination  of  their  own 
reports  will  show,  that  while  the  larger 
proportion  of  the  vast  incomes  of  some  of 


22  Secret  Societies. 

these  orders  is  expended  in  mere  pomp  and 
show,  it  is  a  comparatively  trifling  amount 
that  goes  to  the  relief  of  the  needy  and 
suffering.  The  amount  expended  by  one 
of  the  smaller  branches  of  the  church  in 
this  land  for  really  benevolent  objects  far 
exceeds  that  of  the  strongest  and  wealthiest 
of  these  orders.  So  that  the  assertion  that 
the  benevolence  of  these  orders  excels  that 
of  the  church  is  a  false  and  a  base  slander, 
(b.)  Let  it  be  remembered,  also,  that 
whatever  is  done  by  ihe  members  of  these 
societies,  even  Christian  members,  redounds 
to  the  credit  of  the  order  and  not  to  Christ. 
While  the  church  of  God  teaches  as  the 
law  of  her  Plead,  the  duty  of  doing  good 
to  all  men  as  we  have  opportunity,  and 
actually  exercises  through  her  membership 
all  the  benevolence  worthy  of  the  name 
that  aims  to  bless  and  elevate  suffering  hu- 
manity ;  yet  all  the  honor  of  it  is  cheer- 
fully ascribed  to  Christ,  and  not  to  any 
man  or  organization.  Onr  Lord  said  to 
his  disciples,  "  When  thou  doest  alms,  do 
not  sound  a  trumpet  before  thee  as  the 
hypocrites  do,  in  the  synagogues  and  in  the 
streets,  that  they  may  be  seen  of  men : 
Yerily,  I  say  unto  you,  they  have  their  re- 
ward."    This  is  just  what  these  societies 


Secret  Societies.  23 

do,  and  doubtless  this  is  one  reason  why 
we  hear  so  much  more  of  their  benevolence 
just  because  the  end  and  object  of  it  is 
self-glorification.  How  can  a  Christian 
consistently  lend  his  countenance  and  name 
to  that  which  detracts  from  the  glory  of 
his  Master,  and  seeks  the  praise  of  men 
and  not  of  God. 

(c.)  Moreover,  in  the  day  of  final  reck- 
oning only  those  good  deeds  that  are  done 
in  the  name  of  Chnst  and  for  Ms  sake  will 
be  regarded  as  worthy  of  mention.  And 
measured  by  this  standard,  love  to  Christ 
and  to  our  fellow  men  for  his  sake,  all  the 
boasted  charity  of  these  orders  will  be  cast 
out  as  spurious  and  worthless,  being  noth- 
ing more  than  a  species  of  selfishness: 
"Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not  to  one  of  the 
least  of  these  m}^  brethren,  ye  did  it  not  to 
me."  Thus  the  whole  influence  of  these 
associations,  as  combinations  for  selfish 
purposes,  in  their  selfish  morality  aud  sel- 
fish benevolence,  serves  to  foster  and 
strengthen  this  principle  of  evil  in  the  in- 
dividual and  in  society,  and  so  instead  of 
assisting  the  church  it  opposes  an  ever  in- 
creasing barrier  to  the  influence  of  Christi- 
anity through  the  church    and    upon    the 


24  Secret  Societies. 

world  at  large.  For  this  reason  then 
Christians  should  have  no  fellowship  with 
them. 

4th.  Fellowship  ivith  these  societies  is  in- 
consistent ivith  that  separedion  from  the  world 
which  is  essential  to  the  Christian  character. 
This  is  of  itself  sufficient  and  conclusive 
reason  why  Christians  should  not  have  con- 
nection with  them.  That  these  societies 
belong  to  the  world  will  hardly  be  disput- 
ed. They  cannot  claim,  they  will  hardly 
pretend  to  be  of  Divine  institution;  their 
origin  is  in  the  world;  the  principles  of 
their  organization  are  of  the  world  ;  their 
morality  and  benevolence  are  worldly ; 
their  aims  and  ends  are  worldly  and  selfish, 
and  their  membership  is  largely,  and  we 
may  safely  say  predominantly,  from  the 
world,  composed  of  all  sorts,  men  of  all 
religions  and  of  no  religion  at  all ;  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  Greeks,  Mohammedans,  pa- 
gans, infidels,  ungodly  and  wicked  men  in 
equally  good  standing  with  Christians  or 
ministers  of  the  Gospel.  Now,  there  is 
nothing  more  plainly  revealed  in  the  word 
of  God  than  this,  that  the  world  which 
lieth  in  the  wicked  one  is  the  great  enemy 
of  Christ,  and  that  whosoever  is  the  friend 
of  the  world  is  the  enemy  of  God.     There 


Secret  Societies.  26 

is  no  duty  more  frequently  insisted  on  in 
the  Bible  than  that  of  Christians  maintain- 
ing a  complete  and  universal  separation 
from  the  world.  In  the  language  of  Mr. 
Moody,  "  With  the  Bible  open  before  me  I 
can  not  see  what  right  any  child  of  God 
has  to  go  and  yoke  himself  with  unbeliev- 
ers in  business  or  in  secret  societies,  or  in 
any  other  society.  If  you  say  it  is  to  do 
good,  you  can  do  more  good  without  them 
than  you  can  possibly  do  by  identifying 
yourself  with  them;  Abraham  had  more 
influence  over  Sodom  away  up  in  Hebron 
than  Lot  had  there  in  Sodom."  This  is 
strong  language,  but  is  it  not  true  ?  The 
people  of  Israel  were  expressly  forbidden 
to  make  covenants  of  peace  and  friendship, 
or  enter  into  any  alliance  whether  by  mar- 
riage with  the  surrounding  nations,  and 
nothing  was  a  more  fruitful  source  of  cor- 
ruption and  consequent  calamity  to  that 
nation  than  the  neglect  or  disregard  of  this 
prohibition.  The  same  principle  applies 
to  the  church  of  God  to-day.  The  com- 
mand, "  Be  not  unequally  yoked  together 
with  unbelievers"  has  reference  not  mere- 
ly, nor  even  principally  to  the  marriage 
relation.  But  from  the  reasons  assigned  it 
is  evident  that  the  injunction  applies  witli 


26  Secret  Societfes. 

special  force  to  just  such  associations  as 
Ibese  fraternities  which  bring  togetlier  in 
the  closest  bonds  of  fellowship,  friendship 
and  even  brotherhood,  Christian  and  infi- 
del, believer  and  unbeliever,  the  friends 
and  enemies  of  Christ :  "  For  what  fellow- 
ship hath  righteousness  with  unrighteous- 
ness, and  what  communion  hath  light  with 
darkness?  and  what  concord  hath  Christ 
with  Belial?  or  what  part  hath  he  that  be- 
lieveth  with  an  infidel?  and  what  agree- 
ment hath  the  temple  of  God  with  idols  ; 
for  ye  are  the  temple  of  the  living  God." 
Language  could  not  more  strongly  impress 
the  relation  and  duty  of  the  church  and  its 
members  towards  these  secret  societies. 
While  we  are  not  prohibited  from  all  inter- 
course with  men  of  the  world  in  the  affairs 
of  business,  or  in  those  relations  of  civil 
society,  in  which  God  has  placed  us,  yet 
neither  with  individuals  nor  associations 
are  we  at  liberty  to  form  covenants  of 
friendship  or  brotherhood.  The  attitude 
of  the  church  to  the  world  is  that  of  con- 
stant, uncompromising  hostility,  and  the 
obligation  on  the  church  and  its  members 
to-day  is  just  as  strict  and  imperative  as 
ever  to  maintain  a  complete  and  entire  sep- 
aration from  it,  both   in  order  to  preserve 


Secret  Societies.  27 

their  freedom  I'rom  its  corrupting  influen- 
ces and  to  maintain  a  testimony  against  its 
evils.  The  voice  of  Christ,  which  is  the 
voice  of  duty  and  the  voice  of  wisdom, 
cries  aloud  to  every  Christian,  "  Come  out 
from  among  them  and  be  ye  separate,  and 
touch  not  the  unclean  thinar."  "Have  no 
fellowship  with  the  unfruitful  works  of 
darkness  but  rather  reprove  them ;"  and 
only  by  obeying  this  voice  by  the  way  of 
requiring  her  members  to  abstain  from  all 
connection  with  these  societies,  can  the 
church  of  Christ  "keep  herself  unppotted 
from  the  world,"  avoid  compromise  with 
its  evils,  and  be  free  from  its  corrupting  in- 
fluences and  its  final  condemnation. 

Thus  I  have  presented  considerations 
which  apply  to  all  these  associations,  from 
the  very  principles  of  their  organization, 
the  force  of  which  every  Christian  heart 
will  feel  and  appreciate,  and  which  to  every 
candid  mind  must  appear  conclusive: 
"1'hat  these  associations,  whether  formed 
for  political  or  benevolent  purposes,  are  in 
their  verj^  nature  inconsistent  with  the 
genius  and  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  church 
members  ought  not  to  have  fellowship  with 
them."  I  have  dwelt  thus  long  on  this 
part   of  the   subject   because   it    occupies 


28  Secret  Societies. 

ground  whicli  I  humbly  conceive  has  not 
hitherto  roceived  the  consideration  which 
its  importance  demands,  and  because  the 
considerations  presented  can  be  understood 
and  appreciated  as  well  as  by  those  outside 
as  by  those  inside  of  these  orders. 

II.     Theib  Secrecy. 

5th.  Another  reason  why  these  associa- 
tions are  inconsistent  with  the  genius  of 
Christianity  is  because  the  secrecy  wliicli  they 
offect^  and  to  which  they  hind  their  members 
by  promise  or  oath,  is  unnecessary  ajid  so  tin- 
vmrrantable,  dangerous,  and  ensnaring  to  the 
conscience,  and  therefore  utterly  opposed  to 
that  openness  and  publicity  luhich  Christ  en- 
joins on  his  disciples  both  by  example  and 
.precept.  "  I  ever  spoke  openly  in  the  syna- 
gogues and  in  secret  have  I  said  nothing." 
"Ye  are  the  light  of  the  v/orld."  "Let 
your  light  so  shine  before  men,"  etc. 

1.  This  secrecy  is  unnecessary  for  any 
good  and  lawful  purpose.  Let  us  carefully 
observe  what  secrecy  is  condemned  and 
when.  It  is  not  denied  that  individuals, 
families  and  even  societies  may  have  secrets 
which  they  are  not  bound  to  disclose,  bat 
these  are  private  or  personal  affairs  with 
which  the  public  has  no  concern.     These, 


Secrlt  Societies.  29 

however,  are  not  private  but  public  associ- 
ations, cliiiming  public  patronage  and  ap- 
proval, extending  their  influence  through 
all  the  ramifications  of  the  community  in 
which  they  exist,  whether  it  be  a  college  or 
society  at  large;  and  yet  secrecy  instead  of 
being  the  exception  is  the  rule;  it  is  not  an 
incidental  but  an  essential  element  of  their 
organization. 

Nor  do  we  deny  that  even  public  bodies, 
legislative  or  judicial,  whether  in  church 
or  state,  may  have  private  or  secret  meet- 
ings, the  proceedings  of  which  it  is  neces- 
sary and  therefore  lawful  and  right  for  good 
and  sufficient  reasons  to  keep  secret.  But 
this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  being 
organized  on  the  principle  of  secrecy,  and 
no  more  justifies  the  charge  of  being  secret 
societies  than  does  the  fact,  that  many  of 
the  meetings  and  proceedings  of  these  asso- 
ciations are  public,  free  them  from  that 
charge.  We  affirm  that  the  secrecy  wdaich 
so  universally  characterizes  tliese  orders  is 
not  necessary  for  any  good  or  lawful  pur- 
pose where  they  have  the  protection  of 
law. 

We  admit  that  when  the  prosecution  of 
that  which  is  good  and  right  exposes  to 
oppression  and  persecution  and  there  is  no 


30  Secret  Societies. 

protection  from  the  law,  then  it  may  be 
necessary  and  proper  to  resort  to  secrecy 
for  self-protection,  as  did  the  primitive 
Christians,  the  Covenanters  of  Scotland, 
and  loyal  leagues  at  the  South  during  the 
rebellion.  But  when,  as  is  the  case  at  least 
in  this  country  now,  and  as  was  true  in  the 
North  during  the  war,  every  one  can  claim 
and  enjoy  the  protection  of  law  in  the 
prosecution  and  accomplishment  of  every 
good  and  worthy  object,  there  is  absolutely 
no  necessity  for  secrecy  and  it  is  therefore 
wrong.  Truth  and  right  under  a  free  gov- 
ernment never  fear  or  need  fear  or  shun 
the  light;  only  that  which  is  conscious  of 
wrong  doing  seeks  to  hide  itself  in  dark- 
ness. These  individuals  and  societies  which 
have  objects  in  view  that  are  condemned 
by  law  or  public  sentiment,  such  as  the 
Ku-Klux  Klan,  the  Jesuits,  and  others,  are 
indeed  under  the  necessity  of  resorting  to 
secrecy.  "  He  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the 
light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light  lest  his 
deeds  should  be  reproved;  but  he  that 
doeth  truth  cometh  to  the  light  that  his 
deeds  maybe  manifest  that  they  are  wrought 
in  God."  So  that  the  very  resort  to  secrecy 
is  in  itself  suspicious,  and  presumptive 
evidence  of  something   wrong  which  will 


Secret  Societies.  81 

not  bear  the  light.  What  would  be  thought 
of  a  church  or  congregation  of  Christians 
organized  on  this  principle  ?  Would  it  not 
deservedly  meet  with  universal  suspicion 
and  reprobation?  Even  when  necessary, 
such  secrecy  is  undesirable  and  fraught 
with  many  evils.  We  know  how  the  secret 
meetings  of  the  early  Christians  exposed 
them  to  undeserved,  yet  unavoidable  oblo- 
quy and  reproach,  as  being  guilty  of  the 
most  scandalous  and  horrible  practices;  and 
when  the  necessity  no  longer  existed  how 
promptly  and  joyfully  they  abandoned 
their  secrecy  and  held  their  meetings  in 
open  day  1  An  imperative  necessity  alcne 
will  justify  such  secrecy  and  only  during 
the  time  such  necessity  exists.  So  that  the 
plea  that  it  is  necessary  to  guard  against 
imposition  will  not  avail,  seeing  such  ne- 
cessity is  not  imperative,  that  is,  there  are 
other  means  of  guarding  against  imposition 
which  individuals  and  societies  have  em- 
ployed and  do  employ  with  reasonabie  suc- 
cess without  resorting  to  secrecy.  Being 
therefore  unnecessary  for  any  good  or  law- 
ful purpose: 

2.  It  is  unwarrantable  for  any  one  and 
especially  for  Christians.  Christ  has  said: 
"Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.     No  man 


32  Secret  Societies. 

lightetli  a  candle  and  putteth  it  under  a 
busbel  or  under  a  bed  but  on  a  candlestick 
and  it  giveth  light  to  all  that  are  in  the 
house." 

Now,  there  are  but  two  alternatives  con- 
ceivable, either  those  things  that  are  kept 
secret  are  good  and  valuable,  important  to 
be  known,  or  they  are  wrong  and  sinful,  or 
at  best  trifling  and  unimportant.  In  either 
case  secrecy  is  unwarrantable.  If  they  are 
wrong,  if  it  be  "a  shame  even  to  speak  of 
those  things  that  are  done  of  them  in  se- 
cret," as  was  the  case  with  the  secret  socie- 
ties in  the  Apostles'  day,  and  as  no  doubt 
is  the  case  with  some  of  them  in  our  own 
day,  such  as  their  indecent  and  disgusting 
ceremonies  of  initiation  and  also  many 
"hidden  things  of  darkness,"  which  the 
great  day  alone  will  reveal,  then  there  can 
be  no  question  as  to  the  Christian's  duty 
not  only  to  have  no  "fellowship  with  the 
unfruitful  works  of  darkness,"  but  rather 
reprove  them  by  exposing  them  to  the 
light  as  many  good  men  have  done  and  are 
doing,  and  that  too,  even  though  they  had 
promised  or  sworn  to  keep  them  secret. 
In  reference  to  these  the  Christian  should 
say  :  "  Oh,  my  soul  come  not  thou  unto 
their  secret;  unto  their  assembly  mine 
honor  be  not  thou  united."     Even  when 


Secret  Societies.  83 

the  secrets  are  harmless  and  trifling,  while 
at  the  same  time  they  pretend  to  introduce 
the  initiated  to  the  knowledge  of  great  and 
profound  mysteries  and  valuable  and  im- 
portant truths,  the  obligation  of  secrecy  is 
unwarrantable  for  a  Christian  because  it 
makes  him  a  party  to  a  stupendous  fraud, 
and  being  deceived  himself  becomes  the 
occasion  and  means  of  deceiving  and  mis- 
leading others. 

But  even  on  the  most  charitable  suppos- 
ition, viz  :  that  these  secrets  are  what  some 
pretend,  important  and  valuable,  worth  all 
the  money  paid  for  them,  still  the  Chris- 
tian may  not  promise  to  keep  secrets  which 
maybe  of  benefit  and  advantage  to  his  fel- 
low men,  in  the  face  of  the  express  com- 
mand of  the  Master:  "  What  I  tell  you  in 
darkness  that  speak  ye  in  light,  and  what 
ye  hear  in  the  ear  that  preach  ye  on  the 
house  tops."  "  Let  your  light  so  shine  be- 
fore men,"  &c.  No  man  or  set  of  men, 
much  less  a  Christian,  has  a  right  to  mon- 
opolize for  their  own  benefit  anything  the 
knowledge  of  which  would  be  of  advan- 
tage to  their  fellow  men.  Even  in  refer- 
ence to  inventions  in  the  useful  arts,  while 
the  inventor  has  a  right  to  a  reasonable 
compensation  for  the  fruit  of  his  inventive 
genius,  yet  he  has  no  right  to   confine  the 


34  Secret  Societies. 

benefits  to  himself,  nor  after  such  reasona- 
ble compensation  to  deprive  the  public  of 
the  advantage  of  its  knowledge  by  locking 
it  up  in  a  secret  circle  or  combination. 
What  wo  aid  be  thought  of  a  teacher  of 
science  who  should  pledge  all  his  scholars 
to  secrecy  as  to  the  discoveries  he  had 
made  and  communicated  to  them?  Indeed 
this  is  the  ^reat  difference  between  the 
heathen  and  Christian  civilization,  as  Wen- 
dell Phillips  has  well  remarked  in  his  lec- 
ture on  the  "  Lost  Arts."  While  among 
ancient  heathen  nations  all  knowledge  or 
learning  in  religion,  science  and  the  arts, 
was  confined  by  strict  secrecy  to  select  cir- 
cles, or  classes,  and  so  became  lost  to  the 
world,  when  their  families  or  classes  be- 
came extinct,  it  is  the  glory  of  our  Chris- 
tian civilization  that  what  is  known  to  any 
individual  becomes  common  property  to 
all,  and  cannot  be  lost  to  the  world:  and 
what  has  produced  this  difference?  Simply 
the  teaching  of  the  Author  of  Christianity, 
obliging  his  disciples  to  be  light-bearers  to 
the  world,  shining  as  lights  in  the  world, 
dispensing  to  all  whatever  good  or  bless- 
ing they  have  received.  '^  Freely  ye  have 
received,  freely  give." 

On  any  supposition,  therefore,  secrecy  in 
a   society  which  claims  and  deserves  the 


Secket  Societies.  35 

patronage  and  encouragement  of  Christians 
is  Lin  warrantable,  and  so  inconsistent  with 
the  genius  and  spirit  of  Christianity.  But 
farther — 

(3)  Such  secrecy  is  dangerous.  While 
it  is  unnecessary  and  unwarrantable  for  any 
good  purpose  and  those  whose  designs  are 
open  and  fair  will  not  resort  to  it,  yet  we 
know  that  those  whose  designs  are  sinister 
and  selfish,  and  who  are  unscrupulous  in 
the  use  of  means  for  carrying  them  out,  do 
find  it  necessary  to  cover  them  up  with  the 
veil  of  secrecy.  And  this  gives  them  a 
great  advantage  not  only  over  the  public 
at  large,  but  also  over  the  honest  and  un- 
suspecting members  of  the  society  or  asso- 
ciation to  which  they  belong.  On  this  ac- 
count it  is  that  political  parties  can  be  pre- 
served from  becoming  corrupt  and  mighty 
engines  for  evil  in  the  hands  of  scheming 
demagogues  only  by  subjecting  them  and 
their  actions  to  the  fullest  and  most  open 
scrutiny  by  the  public  press.  On  this  ac- 
count it  was  that  the  society  called  Jesuits 
became  so  dangerous  wherever  it  was  al- 
lowed to  exist  and  has  been  repeatedly  sup- 
pressed in  several  countri^  of  Europe,  be- 
cause it  became  dangerous  to  the  interest 
of  society  and  the  state.  Even  the  church 
of  God  if  it  should  adopt  the  principle  of 


36  Secret  Societies. 

secrecy  would  undoubtedly  in  a  few  years 
become  corrupt  and  subject  to  the  control 
of  unscrupulous  and  designing  men  who 
could  wield  the  influence  of  the  whole  body 
for  the  accomplishment  of  personal,  selfish 
ends.  As  long  as  human  nature  remains  as 
it  is,  any  society,  it  matters  not  how  good 
and  laudable  its  object,  nor  how  upright 
and  sincere  the  intentions  of  its  founders, 
if  organized  on  the  principle  of  secrecy, 
will  necessarily  fall  into  the  hands  and  un- 
der the  control  of  evil-minded,  selfish  men, 
who  contrive,  sooner  or  later,  to  obtain  the 
monopoly  of  the  highest  ofl&ces  and  places 
of  honor  and  power,  and  so  are  able  to  make 
use  of  the  resources  of  the  whole  order  for 
the  accomplishment  of  their  own  selfish 
aims.  This  might  be  illustrated  by  the 
history  of  secret  orders  from  the  Jesuits 
down  to  the  latest,  and  in  some  respects, 
most  dangerous,  the  grange.  The  only  se- 
curity of  liberty  in  the  state,  of  truth  and 
righteousness  in  the  church,  the  only  pro- 
tection in  any  society  which  the  many  have 
against  the  tyranny,  the  dishonesty  and  op- 
pression of  the  few,  is  by  holding  those  en- 
trusted with  ofiicial  power  and  influence  to 
the  strictest  responsibility,  requiring  them 
to  give  frequent  reports  of  themselves  and 


Secret  Societies.  3T 

their  conduct,  to  the  many.  Bat  this  can- 
not be  clone  in  these  secret  orders,  where 
the  inevitable  tendency  is  to  contract  the 
widest  circle  into  an  ever-narrowing  serpen- 
tine coil  till  it  reaches  the  innermost,  cen- 
tral ring  or  clique,  called  the  highest  degree, 
which  dominates  all  others  and  is  itself  ac- 
countable to  none.  The  only  wonder  is 
that  the  press  of  our  day,  which  is  so  jeal- 
ous or  sensitive  to  the  dangers  arising  from 
secret  rings  or  combinations  in  church  or 
state,  is  so  indifferent  to  the  threatening 
aspect  of  this  growing  and  deepening  cloud 
of  secretism,  which  at  first  no  larger  than 
a  man's  hand,  now  darkens  the  whole  pol- 
itical and  .moral  heavens  with  its  shadow. 
To  us  it  seems  like  the  fascination  of  some 
spell,  which,  like  that  of  slavery,  holds 
both  church  and  state  enchained,  until  the 
cloud  bursts,  as  that  did  in  this  country,  in 
storm  and  tempest  on  our  heads.  How  is 
it  possible  that  the  ministers  and  members 
of  the  church  of  Christ,  who  are  set  as 
watchmen  to  give  the  alarm  can  without 
great  guilt  spare  to  cry  aloud  and  lift  up 
their  voice  of  testimony  like  a  trumpet 
against  this  great  and  growing  evil,  to  show 
men  their  danger,  much  more  lend  the  in- 
fluence   of  their    words   and   example    by 


38  Secret  Societies. 

membership  in  tbeir   orders,  to  encourage 
and  increase  the  evil  ? 

(4)  The  obligation  of  secrecy,  whether 
by  promise  or  oath,  is  ensnaring  to  the  con- 
science, and  so  contrary  to  the  express  com- 
mand of  God  :  "  Thou  shalt  swear," — and 
the  same  principle  applies  to  a  promise — 
*'in  truth,  in  judgment  and  in  righteous- 
ness." We  are  not  now  referring  to  the 
profane  character  ot  the  oaths  which  some 
of  these  societies  impose  upon  their  mem- 
bers, and  which  will  be  considered  in  its 
place.  The  evil  of  the  obligation  of  se- 
crecy is  the  same  whatever  be  the  particu- 
lar form  of  the  obligation,  whether  by 
promise  or  oath.  The  Christian  ought  to 
be  as  circumspect  in  taking  any  obligation 
which  binds  his  conscience  as  in  taking  an 
oath.  Moreover,  the  obligation  of  an  oath, 
if  it  is  an  unlawful  one  (as  all  these  extra- 
judicial oaths  are),  is  not  a  whit  more  bind- 
ing or  sacred  than  that  of  an  unlawful 
promise.  The  addition  of  the  oath  is  only 
an  aggravation  of  the  sin,  involving  as  it 
does  the  guilt  of  profanity,  without  chang- 
ing the  principle  or  character  of  the  obli- 
gation. This  cannot  be  too  frequently  or 
plainly  asserted,  because  the  impression  is 
genera],  that  there  is  some  kind  of  sacred- 
ness  in  the  form  of  the  oath  administered. 


Secret  Societies.  39 

which  becomes  the  more  binding,  the  more 
solemn  and  awful  the  appeals  and  impreca- 
tions with  which  it  is  offered.  So  that 
those  who  disregard  their  obligations  even 
when  convinced  of  their  unlawfulness  are 
considered  guilty  of  perjury.  This  is  a 
great  mistake,  as  may  clearly  be  seen  in 
the  case  of  Herod,  who  rashly  promised 
with  an  oath  that  he  would  give  to  the 
daughter  of  Herodias  whatever  she  might 
ask.  Who  will  say  that  Herod  was  bound 
by  such  an  oath  any  more  than  if  it  had 
been  simply  a  rash  promise?  The  sin  was 
in  taking,  not  in  breaking  it.  To  have  dis- 
regarded it  was  his  duty ;  while  to  keep  it 
involved  him  in  the  additional  crime  of 
murder  without  in  the  least  diminishing 
the  original  guilt  of  his  conduct,  which 
was  the  same  whether  he  kept  or  broke  his 
oath  or  promise.  The  sin  was  in  making 
it,  and  to  keep  it  after  he  found  that  it  in- 
volved him  in  doing  wrong  was  only  to 
add  to  the  sin,  not  only  by  murder,  but  also 
by  showing  that  he  had  more  regard  to  his 
own  word,  or  a  false  sense  of  honor,  than 
he  had  to  the  authority  of  God.  This  fur- 
nishes a  sufficient  answer  to  the  common 
sneer  against  those  who  have  seceded  from 
these  orders  and  revealed  their  secrets,  that 


40  Secret  Societies. 

they  are  dishonored  and  unworthy  of  be- 
lief, because  either  they  say  what  is  false, 
or  are  guilty  of  perjury  in  revealing  what 
they  have  sworn  to  keep.  It  is  not  so. 
On  the  contrary,  those  who  continue  to  re- 
gard the  obligation  of  secrecy  as  binding, 
after  they  are  convinced  that  it  was  unlaw- 
fully assumed  in  the  first  place,  are  the 
guiity  parties  in  God's  sight,  because,  like 
Herod,  they  pay  more  respect  to  their  own 
word,  or  rather  their  false  notion  of  honor, 
than  they  do  to  the  honor  and  authority  of 
God's  law.  It  is  the  keeping,  not  the 
breaking  of  an  unlawful  oath,  or  promise, 
which  is  sinful  in  God's  sight.  Why  ? 
Because  the  taking  of  it  in  the  first  place 
was  the  sin,  and  every  moment  of  continu- 
ing It  after  the  sinfulness  of  it  is  seen  is 
just  a  constant  repetition  of  that  sin. 

Thus  the  obligation  of  secrecy,  or  to 
obey  a  code  of  unknown  laws,  is  ensnaring 
to  the  conscience  whatever  be  the  form  of 
the  obligation,  whether  by  promise  or  oath, 
because  the  Christian  is  placing  himself  in 
a  position  where  for  aught  he  knows,  he 
may  be  under  the  necessity  of  committing 
sin,  either  by  doing  that  which  he  feels  to 
be  wrong  in  order  to  keep  his  word,  or  by 
violating  his  word  or  oath  in  order  to  avoid 


Secret  Societies.  41 

doing  it,  and  no  man  has  a  right  voluntari- 
ly to  place  himself  in  a  position  where  he 
must  choose  between  two  moral  evils.  If 
such  an  obligation  were  attempted  to  be 
imposed  upon  us  even  by  lawful  authority, 
whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  we  should 
resist  it  to  the  utmost  of  our  power  as  an 
infringement  on  our  rights  of  conscience 
which  God  has  left  free  from  the  doctrines 
and  commandments  of  men.  How  much 
more  inexcusable  is  it  for  any  of  Christ's 
people  thus  voluntarily  to  surrender  the 
liberty  they  have  in  the  Gospel,  and  with- 
out any  constraint  put  their  necks  under 
this  most  grievous  of  all  yokes  of  bondage. 
Bat  it  may  be  said  that  every  candidate 
before  joining  these  orders  is  assured  that 
his  obligation  will  not  conflict  with  his 
duty  to  his  God,  himself  or  his  fellow  men, 
and  that  we  have  the  testimony  of  many 
good  men  that  they  have  found  this  to  be 
true.  It  is  sufficient  to  reply  to  this  that 
we  have  testimony  of  many  men  equally 
good,  that  they  have  found  that  the  obliga- 
tion does  conflict  with  their  duties,  as 
Christians,  and  accordingly  have  thrown  it 
off;  and  so  the  one  testimony  will  offset, 
and  more  than  offset  the  other — just  as  one 
positive  will  more  than  outweigh  a  hundred 


42  Seceet  Societies. 

negatives.  But  even  were  it  otherwise, 
were  there  no  such  conflicting  testimony, 
yet  the  assurance  of  any  man  or  number 
of  men,  unless  they  are  infallible,  cannot 
justify  another  in  surrendering  his  own 
right  of  private  judgment.  "Every  one 
must  give  account  of  himself  to  God,"  and 
no  one  who  is  capable  of  judging  for  him- 
self has  a  right  to  surrender  his  conscience 
any  more  than  his  understanding  and  his 
will  to  that  of  another,  unless  that  other  be 
infallible.  Indeed  this  is  the  very  essence 
of  popery,  which  subjects  the  consciences 
of  private  members  to  the  priests  and  of 
the  whole  church  to  the  Pope.  But  as  Pro- 
testants, we  claim  that  each  individual  has 
a  right,  and  is  hound  to  judge  for  himself 
as  to  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong  ac- 
cording to  the  only  infallible  standard — the 
word  of  God.  The  injunction,  "  Prove  all 
things,"  is  addressed  to  every  individual, 
and  no  one  can  comply  with  it  without 
having  submitted  what  he  is  called  to  re- 
ceive and  obey,  to  the  test  of  God's  word. 
In  this  matter  we  cannot,  we  dare  not,  rest 
our  faith  on  the  judgment,  or  say  so  of 
any  man  or  set  of  men.  They  may  assist 
us  in  arriving  at  a  correct  judgment  as  to 
whether   any  given    action    or  thing  is   in 


Secret  Societies.  43 

accordance  with  the  Divine  will.  But  we 
repeat,  no  one  who  is  capable  of  judging  for 
himself  can,  without  entangling  his  con- 
science or  surrendering  his  liberty,  accept 
and  act  upon  the  simple  assurance  of  an- 
other as  to  what  is  right  or  wrong  in  any 
given  case,  unless  he  know  beforehand  and 
have  an  opportunity  of  judging  for  him- 
self-; so  that  any  promise  of  secrecy,  or 
obedience. to  a  code  of  unknown  laws  is 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  genius  and 
spirit  of  Christianity,  and  no  Christian  who 
has  any  regard  to  the  purity  and  liberty  of 
his  conscience  can  lawfully  assume  such  ob- 
ligation. 

Thus  we  have  shown  that  the  secrecy 
that  belongs  to  all  these  associations  is — - 

(l.)  Unnecessary  for  any  good  purpose: 
(2.)  Unwarrantable,  incompatible  with  the 
character  »nd  position  of  Christ's  followers 
as  lights  in  the  world:  (8.)  Dangerous 
to  the  interests  of  society  and  the  purity  of 
the  church  ;  and  (4,)  Ensnaring  to  the  con- 
science, and  so  incompatible  with  each  one's 
personal  responsibility  to  God. 

III.  Anti-Christian"  and  Profane, 

What  we  have  hitherto  said  applies  to 
all  associations  or  fraternities  which  impose 


44  Seceet  Societies. 

on  their  members  a  promise  or  oath  of  se- 
crecy or  an  obligation  to  obey  a  code  of 
unknown  laws.  The  objection  we  come 
now  to  notice,  applies  with  particular  force 
to  such  societies  as  the  Masonic  fraternity 
which,  however,  is  the  mother  and  model  of 
all  of  them.  While  some  of  them  may  not 
be  liable  to  all  the  objections  which  we  pre- 
sent under  this  head,  yet  inasmuch  as  they 
imitate  many  of  its  anti-Christian  rites  and 
ceremonies,  they  are  so  far  conformed  to 
their  model,  partake  of  its  characteristics, 
and  must  share  in  its  condemnation.  There- 
fore, we  say  that  these  associations  are  in- 
consistent with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  church  members  ought  not  to 
have  fellowship  with  them. 

6th.  Because  the  religion  they  profess  to 
jiractice  is  anti-  Christian^  and  many  of  their 
rites  and  ceremonies  are  shockingly  profane. 

That  these  societies  have  a  religion  is 
susceptible  of  demonstration,  and  is  even 
admitted  and  exultingly  claimed  by  their 
own  writers  and  advocates.  They  have 
their  religious  rituals  for  different  occa- 
sions, such  as  funerals,  dedications,  &c., — 
call  their  buildings  temples,  that  is,  places 
of  worship ;  they  have  their  hymns,  pray- 
ers,   altars,    priests,    some   of    them    even 


Secret  Societies.  45 

sacraments,  and  profess  to  prepare  their 
members  for  the  lodge  above,  meaning 
heaven.  Now  what  is  this  religion?  Tt 
must  be  either  Christian  or  anti-Christian  ; 
it  cannot  be  neutral  or  indifferent.  That  it 
is  not  Christian  is  evident,  because  the  very 
name  of  Christ  and  everything  distinctive- 
ly Christian  is  studiously  and  of  set  pur 
pose  excluded  from  its  authorized  services. 
We  say  authorized  services^  because  what- 
ever may  be  the  practice  of  particular  in- 
dividuals or  lodges,  different  from  what  is 
prescribed  in  their  manuals,  whether  writ- 
ten or  oral,  can  no  more  be  ascribed  to  the 
order,  than  the  crime  committed  by  indi- 
viduals or  lodges  without  the  approval  or 
sanction  of  the'society  can  justly  be  charged 
to  that  society.  Now,  what  is  the  religion 
taught  in  their  manuals,  and  prescribed  by 
the  authority  of  these  orders  as  such  ?  We 
answer,  simply  bald  deism.  The  God  they 
worship,  the  Supreme  Being  whom  they 
recognize  is  no  more  the  Christian's  God, 
the  Triune  Jehovah,  than  he  is  the  God  of 
the  Jews,  Mohammedans,  or  pagans.  He 
is  an  imaginary  being  in  whose  Avorship 
Jews,  Mohammedans,  infidels  and  pagans, 
those  of  the  most  opposite  opinions  and 
beliefs,  all  except  Christians,  can  consist- 
ently unite.     Indeed  it  is  their  pride  and 


46  Secret  Societies. 

boast  that  in  their  temples  and  at  their  al- 
tars there  is  the  utmost  liberality,  where 
all  except  Christians,  can  meet  on  a  com- 
mon level.  They  say,  "  except  Christians," 
because  they  leave  out  their  peculiarities  as 
Christians,  and  so  cease,  for  the  time  to  be 
Christians  while  officiating  or  participating 
in  these  Christless  ceremonies  where  there 
is  no  mention  of  the  name  of  Christ,  no 
recognition  of  sin,  of  atonement,  or  recon- 
ciliation by  blood,  nothing  but  a  kind  of 
heathen  morality  and  worldly  benevolence 
which  their  members  are  taught  to  believe 
will  commend  them  to  God  and  procure 
them  admission  to  heaven  or  the  lodge 
above.  Thus,  in  the  language  of  the  pro- 
phet Bzekiel,  43:  8  verse:  "In  their  set- 
ting of  their  threshold  by  my  thresholds, 
and  their  post  by  my  posts,  and  their  wall 
between  me  and  them,  they  have  even  de- 
filed my  holy  name  by  their  abominations." 
If,  as  is  claimed  in  some  of  their  degrees, 
there  is  anything  introduced  peculiar  to 
Christianity,  it  is  only  by  way  of  imitation 
or  caricature,  producing  a  kind  of  mongrel 
mixture  of  paganism,  Judaism,  and  spuri- 
ous Christianity,  which  like  the  religion  of 
the  colonists  of  Samaria  is  even  worse  than 
pure  deism.     This   compromising  of  truth 


Secret  Societies.  47 

with  error,  of  Christ  with  Belial,  of  the 
temple  of  God  with  idols,  is  the  worst 
form  of  an ti- Christ,  and  renders  the  religion 
of  these  societies  near  akin  to  poperj,  if 
indeed  it  is  not  even  worse.  How  any 
minister,  or  member  of  the  church  of  Jesus 
Christ  can  lend  his  countenance  or  encour- 
agement to  such  a  religion,  even  by  his 
presence,  much  more  by  officiating,  or 
taking  part  in  such  ceremonies,  miscalled 
religion,  so  dishonoring  to  his  Master  and 
directly  opposed  to  the  very  primary  and 
fundamental  principles  of  our  holy  religion, 
is,  and  must  forever  remain  a  most  inexpli- 
cable  mystery  ! 

We  have  said  that  many  of  their  rites 
and  ceremonies  are  shockingly  profane. 

1.  They  profess  the  name  of  God  by 
ascribing  those  titles  to  their  officers  which 
belong  peculiarly  to  God  and  Christ,  such 
as  Most  Excellent  High  Priest,  Most  Puis- 
sant Potentate,  &c. 

(2.)  They  profane  the  solemn  ordinance  of 
the  oath,  which  is  only  properly  observed 
when  administered  first  by  lawful  authority^ 
second  on  a  lawful  occasion,  and  thirdly 
for  a  lawful  purpose,  not  one  of  which  es- 
sential conditions  can  be  found  in  the  oaths 
which  these  societies  presume  to  administer, 


48  Secret  Societies. 

as  might  be  easily  shown  if  space  permitted. 

(3.)  They  profane  the  Bible  by  pervert- 
ing its  meaning,  and  using  the  Book  for 
purposes  for  which  it  was  never  intended. 
The  employment  of  it  as  a  symbol  of  Ma- 
sonry, as  an  instrument  to  swear  by,  and 
carrying  It  in  processions  along  with  the 
sword  of  the  civil  magistrate  can  only  be 
regarded  as  a  superstitious,  unwarranted 
and  so  profane  use  of  that  holy  book. 
Their  extracts  and  quotation  from  it  in 
their  lectures  and  elsewhere,  are  often  gar- 
bled, mutilated,  and  most  grossly  perverted 
and  profaned  by  leaving  out  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  wherever  it  occurs,  and.  apply- 
ing what  has  sole  reference  to  him  and  his 
church,  to  their  own  orders.  This  can  be 
easily  verified  by  an  examination  of  any  of 
their  authorized  manuals. 

Finally:  The  most  sacred  symbols  of 
the  Divine  presence  and  divine  worship  are 
employed  in  such  a  way  as  can  only  be  re- 
garded as  idolatrous  and  profane.  Thus 
we  find  among  the  furniture  of  some  of 
their  lodges  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the 
breastplate  of  judgment,  Aaron's  rod  that 
budded,  the  brazen  serpent,  the  white  stone, 
the  altar  of  incense,  and  many  others* 
which,  where  it  was  lawful  to  use  them, 


Secret  Societies.  49 

were  to  be  handled  with  the  utmost  rever- 
ence, and  the  imitation  of  Avhich  was  for- 
bidden under  the  most  dreadful  penalties; 
and  yet  which  are  now  by  these  societies 
imitated,  caricatured,  and  used  for  purposes 
for  which  they  were  never  intended,  with 
a  blasphemy  and  profanity  that  is  absolute- 
ly appalling.  These  things  are  done  in 
their  public  processions,  funerals,  dedica- 
tions and  celebrations  of  various  kinds,  in 
the  light  of  day,  and  in  the  face  of  the  sun. 
Alas!  that  we  should  have  to  say  it;  with 
the  silent  consent  or  the  active  co-operation 
and  unblushing  approval  of  those  bearing 
the  name  of  Christians  and  even  Christian 
ministers  ! !!  And  if  these  things  are  done 
in  the  green  tree  what  may  we  suppose  is 
done  in  the  dry — in  their  secret  conclaves, 
in  their  chambers  of  imagery  where  like 
those  seen  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  as  re- 
corded in  the  8th  chapter  of  his  prophecy, 
they  are  found  worshiping  toward  the  east 
with  their  backs  to  the  temple  of  God  ;  i.  e., 
worshiping  the  sun,  and  where,  as  we  are 
gravely  informed'  by  some  of  their  writers 
the  worship  of  Tammuz  and  the  Greek 
Adonis  is  revived  under  the  name  of  Hiram 
AbiS'!  If  a  heathen  temple  were  erected 
in   our   midst,  alongside   of  our  churches, 


50  Secret  Societies. 

with  its  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  of  idola- 
trous worship,  it  would  excite  such  horror 
and  indignation  in  a  Christian  community 
as  would  loudly  clamor  for  its  removal  or 
destruction.  But  we  have  among  us  all 
over  this  Christian  land,  close  beside  our 
churches,  built  at  vast  expense,  temples 
rivaling  in  splendor  that  of  Solomon, 
where  a  worship  is  maintained  as  truly  and 
really  idolatrous  as  that  of  ancient  Greece 
or  Rome;  and  yet  the  churches  of  God  are 
either  indifferent  spectators  or  active  abet- 
tors !  "  Tell  it  not  in  Gath !"  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  some  of  us  feel,  like  Paul  at 
Athens,  our  spirit  stirred  within  us,  to  cry 
out  with  voice  and  pen  against  this  great, 
growing  idolatry,  and  especially  to  say  to 
Christians,  "  Come  out  from  among  them 
and  be  ye  separate  and  touch  not  the  un- 
clean thing."  "  Have  no  fellowship  with 
the  unfruitful  works  of  darkness,  but  rather 
reprove  them."  "  For  what  fellowship 
hath  righteousness  with  unrighteousness  ? 
or  what  communion  hath  light  v/ith  dark- 
ness ;  and  what  concord  hath  Christ  with 
Belial ;  or  what  part  hath  he  that  believeth 
with  an  infidel ;  or  what  agreement  hath 
the  temple  of  God  with  idols  ?" 


Secret  Societies.  51 

Considering,  therefore,  the  principles  of 
selfishness  which  characterize  all  their  or- 
ganizations, their  secrecy,  and  their  anti- 
Christian  and  profane  character  are  we  not 
warranted  in  saying  that  they  "  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity and  church  members  ought  not  to 
have  fellowship  with  them." 


^^s^-'V^ 


United  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication, 
55  Ninth  St.,  Pittsburgh. 


United  Presbyterian  Tracts,  No.  26. 


An  Authorised  Psalmody. 


The  position  of  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church  is  contained  in  the  following  declara- 
tion of  the  Testimony . 

DECLARATION. 

*'  We  declare  that  it  is  the  will  of  God  that 
the  songs  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms 
be  sung  in  his  worship,  both  public  and  pri- 
vate, to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  in  sing- 
ing God's  praise  these  songs  should  be  em- 
ployed to  the  exclusion  of  the  devotional 
compositions  of  uninspired  men." 

This  declaration  contains  a  statement  of 
truth  and  an  inference  from  it.  It  is  the 
positive  declaration  which  contains  the  prin- 
ciple— the  inference  is  the  application  of  that 
principle  to  a  particular  instance,  without, 
however,  excluding  other  instances  to  which 


2         An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

it  is  equally  applicable,  as  to  imitation  of  the 
Psalms,  paraphrases,  versifications  of  other 
parts  of  Scripture,  &c.  Indeed,  if  the  in- 
ference is  made  co-extensive  with  the  state- 
ment of  the  principle,  as  it  might  be,  and  as 
it  logically  shoftld  be,  it  would  read  thus : 
"And  in  singing  God's  praise,  these  songs 
should  be  employed  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others  which  have  not  the  same  or  equal  au- 
thority for  their  use." 

The  position,  therefore,  which  we  occupy 
and  are  called  upon  to  maintain,  as  stated  in 
this  declaration,  is  the  exclusive  use  of  an 
authorized  Psalmody — not  simply  or  even 
primarily  an  inspired  as  distinguished  from 
an  uninspired  Psalmody,  for  even  what  is 
inspired  may  not  be  authorized — nor  yet  a 
Scripture  as  distinguished  from  Scriptural 
Psalmody  (as  some  put  it ;)  for  we  maintain 
that  to  be  the  only  Scriptural  Psalmody 
which  is  warranted  by  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures;  and  what  does  not  possess  this 
quality  is  not  Scriptural  even,  though  it  be 
Scripture  itself.  The  key  to  the  whole  posi- 
tion  is  contained  in   the  words,   "  It  is  the 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.         3 

will  of  God,"  recognizing  this  as  the  sole  and 
sufficient  reason  for  the  use  of  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  and  the  consequent  exclusion  of  all 
others  as  not  possessing  the  Scriptural  war- 
rant. The  position  as  thus  defined  and  sep- 
arated from  all  side  issues  with  which  it  is 
frequently  confounded,  is  easily  understood 
and  is  capable  of  being  clearly  demonstrated. 
We  are  confined  to  the  simple  question, 
What  is  the  will  of  God?  and  to  this  ques- 
tion a  distinct  and  satisfactory  answer  can  be 
given.  To  the  question,  What  is  most  agree- 
able to  men's  taste  and  feelings?  or  even 
What  is  most  profitable  to  inspire  devotional 
frames  and  promote  the  growth  of  religion 
in  the  soul  ?  no  answer  can  be  given  which 
would  prove  universally  satisfactory,  nor  even 
permanently  satisfactory  to  any,  because 
men's  tastes  and  feelings,  as  well  as  their  ex- 
perience, differ  so  widely  in  different  individ- 
uals, and  even  in  the  same  individual  at  dif- 
ferent times.  Hence  the  multiplication  and 
continual  changing  of  hymnologies.  But  to 
the  question,  what  is  acceptable  to  God — 
what  is  his  will  ?     One  answer,  and  one  only 


4         An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

can  be  given.  What  saith  the  Word  ?  How 
readest  thou?  From  this  question  all  con- 
siderations of  men's  tastes  and  experience, 
or  the  respective  merits  of  Psalms  and  hymns 
as  determined  by  this  standard,  are  utterly 
excluded,  and  we  are  confined  to  the  single 
point,  What  has  God  appointed  or  author- 
ized ? 

Nor  is  the  question  here  respecting  differ- 
ent versions,  their  comparative  excellencies 
or  defects ;  for  until  it  is  decided  what  is  to 
be  used  in  the  praise  of  God,  what  is  to  be 
versified,  there  is  no  common  ground  on  which 
the  question  of  versions  can  be  considered  and 
settled  ;  and  when  the  former  is  determined 
there  will  be  little  difficulty  in  agreeing  on 
the  latter.  Just  as  it  is  in  regard  to  the 
Bible  itself — let  the  inspiration  and  divine 
authority  of  its  various  books  be  established 
and  admitted,  and  the  question  of  transla- 
tions— their  comparative  merits — will  settle 
itself. 

The  question,  therefore,  between  Psalm- 
singers  and  hymn-singers  is  not  which  have 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.         5 

the  best  version  of  that  which  is  equally  ac- 
ceptable to  God,  but  a  far  deeper  and  more 
important  one — one  in  which  every  church, 
and  indeed  every  worshiper,  is  equally  inter- 
ested ;  not  as  between  them  and  other  indi- 
viduals or  churches,  but  between  them  and 
their  God — what  is  acceptable  to  him  in  the 
matter  of  praise  as  an  ordinance  of  worship. 
In  other  words,  it  is  a  matter  of  principle, 
and  not  mere  expediency;  duty,  and  not 
mere  preference.  When  the  churches  come 
to  consider  and  treat  it  on  this  ground,  a 
long  step  will  be  taken  toward  the  healing  of 
these  divisions  which  have  been  caused  by 
the  neglect  or  refusal  to  so  consider  it. 

That,  therefore,  which  we  are  required  to 
establish  as  an  affirmative  proposition  is  this, 
and  this  only:  ''  That  the  songs  contained  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms  are  given  and  appointed 
by  God  to  constitute  the  matter  of  praise  in 
the  worship,  of  his  church,  both  public  and 
private,  to  the  end  of  the  world."  If  any  others 
are  offered  or  employed,  whether  inspired  or 
uninspired,  it  rests  on  those  who  thus  offer 
or  employ  them  to  show  the  same  or  equal 


6         An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

authority  for  their  use,  else  they  are  exclud- 
ed. In  other  words,  it  requires  positive  di- 
vine authority  to  warrant  their  introduction, 
but  not  their  exclusion. 

With  all  due  deference  to  the  honored 
fathers  and  brethren  who  have  done  so,  I 
humbly  submit  that  it  is  not  proper  or  legiti- 
mate, to  speak  of  the  exclusion  of  other  parts 
of  Scripture  as  an  attainment  which  the 
church  has  not  made.  Their  introduction 
would  properly  be  an  attainment,  for  it  would 
argue  that  some  authority  and  warrant  for 
their  use  had  been  found  in  the  word  of  God. 
But  until  this  is  done,  they  are  excluded  i'pso 
factOj  according  to  the  position  which  we,  as 
a  church,  have  always  occupied ;  and  this  has 
been  the  practical,  because  it  is  the  logical, 
result  of  that  position. 

It  is  proposed  now  to  establish  the  position 
thus  defined  by  a  single  argument  in  the  form 
of  a  syllogism,  to  which  I  think  all  the  argu- 
ments commonly  urged  may  be  reduced,  and 
which  answers  all  contrary  arguments  and 
objections,  viz. : 


An"  Authorized  Psalmody.         7 

Major  premise — That  only  is  to  be  used 
in  the  formal  worship  of  God  which  he  hath 
appointed  for  that  purpose. 

Minor  premise — The  songs  contained  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  they  only,  have  been 
given  and  appointed  by  God  to  be  used  in 
his  worship  in  the  ordinance  of  praise. 

Ergo — The  songs  contained,  (fee,  and  they 
only,  are  to  be  used  in  the  formal  worship  of 
God  in  the  ordinance  of  praise. 

In  regard  to  the  first  premise,  the  very 
statement  of  it  appears  almost  like  an  axiom, 
the  truth  of  which  no  Protestant,  at  least, 
would  deny  or  gainsay,  for  it  is  the  very  prin- 
ciple underlying  the  Reformation  from  Pop- 
ery, viz.,  the  Word  of  God  is  the  infallible, 
all-sufficient  and  only  rule  of  faith  and  duty 
in  all  matters  affecting  the  doctrine,  order 
and  worship  of  the  Church  of  God.  It  is, 
moreover,  the  only  principle  on  which  the 
pretensions  of  Ritualism  or  High  Churchism 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Rationalism  or 
Broad  Churchism  on  the  other  hand,  can 
be  successfully  met  and  refuted.  Neither 
the  authority  of  Pope  or  councils,  the  dogmas 


8         An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

of  the  church  or  of  individuals,  the  dictates 
of  reason  or  expediency — nothing  but  the 
authority  of  God  in  his  Word,  can  bind  the 
conscience  or  prescribe  what  is  to  be  believed 
or  practiced  in  his  worship. 

True,  there  are  many  things  connected 
with  the  due  observance  of  divine  ordinances, 
or  the  carrying  out  of  divine  prescriptions, 
which  are  left  to  be  regulated  by  the  exer- 
cise of  a  sound  reason  and  discretion,  subject 
to  this  general  rule,  ^*  Let  all  things  be  done 
decently  and  in  order."  But  these  are  only 
such  things  as  are  clearly  and  necessarily 
implied  in  the  divine  command  or  prescription 
itself.  Thus  the  command  to  "  sing  Psalms," 
requires  that  they  should  be  translated  into 
such  a  form  that  they  can  be  sung,  and  ac- 
companied with  appropriate  music ;  but  the 
kind  of  metres  and  the  particular  tunes  are 
determined  by  sound  judgment  and  good 
taste.  This  admission,  however,  is  neither  an 
infringement  on  nor  a  limitation  of  the  prin- 
ciple we  have  stated;  for,  as  we  have  said, 
these  things  are  implied  in  the  command 
itself,   just    as    "Search    the    Scriptures" 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.         9 

requires  and  authorizes,  by  implication,  trans- 
lations into  the  vulgar  tongue,  of  the  style 
and  faithfulness  of  which  reason  must  be  the 
judge. 

I  have  said  that  the  very  statement  of  the 
principle  contained  in  the  major  premise  ought 
to  commend  itself  to  the  ready  acceptance  of 
every  Protestant  mind,  and  for  our  present 
purpose  we  have  to  do  with  no  other.  And 
yet,  it  is  on  this  very  point  that  the  whole 
issue  of  the  question  of  Psalmody  turns;  for 
all,  or  nearly  all,  are  willing  to  admit  that 
the  Book  of  Psalms  was  given  to  be  sung  in 
the  praise  of  God,  and  that  they  are  design- 
ed and  adapted  for  use  in  the  church  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  It  is  their  exclusive  use 
which  is  denied,  or,  rather,  liberty  is  claimed 
in  regard  to  their  use  and  the  use  of  any 
other  Scriptural  songs.  Indeed,  this  is  the 
main,  1  might  say  the  only,  plea  which  ^is 
urged  with  any  degree  of  seriousness  in  favor 
of  hymn  singing — the  plea  of  Christian  lib- 
erty. It  becomes  necessary  to  show  that 
this  is  not  a  matter  of  Christian  liberty.     If 


10       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

this  is  done,  then  the  whole  question  is  de- 
cided so  far  as  the  great  majority  of  our  op- 
ponents are  concerned,  and  their  own  admis- 
sion that  the  Psalms  were  given  and  appointed 
to  be  sung  in  the  worship  of  God  through  all 
time,  can  be  turned  against  them  with  con- 
clusive effect. 

Now,  this  is  done  by  showing  that  the 
singing  of  Psalms  or  hymns  iu  the  worship 
of  God  is  a  matter  of  obligation  as  a  duty, 
and  not  of  indifference  or  liberty  ;  determin- 
ed and  imposed  by  divine  authority,  and  not 
by  the  opinions  or  commandments  of  men. 
Liberty  can  only  be  claimed  where  there  is 
no  obligation  of  divine  authority — it  is  free- 
dom from  the  obligation  of  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies imposed  by  human  authority,  or  the 
obligation  of  which  has  been  repealed  or 
abrogated.  It  certainly  cannot  be  urged  in 
reference  to  divine  commands,  implicit  re- 
gard to  which  is  not  only  the  highest  duty, 
but  at  the  same  time  the  utmost  liberty. 

The  putting  in  of  this  plea  is,  therefore, 
simply  a  begging  of  the  question.  It  pro- 
ceeds on  the  assumption  that  what  we   sing 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       11 

in  the  praise  of  God,  or  whether  we  sing  at 
all,  is  left  to  be  decided  by  everyone's  judg- 
ment or  feeling — in  other  words,  is  a  matter 
of  indifference,  like  the  eating  of  meats  or 
the  observing  of  days.  But  the  truth  is, 
that  it  is  not  only  right  but  the  duty  of  all 
who  can,  to  sing  God's  praise.  If  it  is  right 
to  sing  Psalms,  it  is  a  duty  to  do  so.  If  it  is 
right  to  sing  hymns,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to  do 
so  when  opportunity  offers.  The  whole  ques- 
tion, is  one  of  duty  and  not  of  privilege  ;  to 
be  determined  not  by  our  own  will  and  pleas- 
ure, but  by  the  will  of  God  as  made  known 
in  his  Word,  which,  being  ascertained,  leaves 
no  room  for  liberty  at  all. 

Having  thus  cleared  the  subject  of  all  ir- 
relevant questions  and  side  issues,  we  are 
prepared  to  consider  the  principle  laid  down 
in  our  major  premise — the  arguments  which 
may  be  adduced  in  its  favor. 

And  first,  we  argue  that  nothing  is  to  be 
employed  in  the  formal  worship  of  God  but 
that  which  he  hath  appointed  for  that  pur- 
pose, because, 

Obedience  to  tlie  willcf  God  belongs  to  the 


12       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

essence  of  all  acceptable  worship,  "  In 
vain,"  says  God,  Matt.  15:  9,  "do  ye 
worship  mc,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men."  Such  worship  is  will- 
worship.  For,  what  is  true  worship  ?  It 
is  that  religious  homage,  reverence  and  hon- 
or which  is  due  to  God  from  his  creatures,or  in 
other  words,  expressed  subjection  to  his  will. 
It  consists  not  only  in  doing  what  he  has 
commandedjbut  doing  it  because  he  has  com- 
manded it,  and  therefore  must  be  done  when, 
where,  and  in  the  manner  he  has  com- 
manded. It  will  not  avail  to  say,  that  he 
has  nowhere  forbidden  it,  or  that  the  thing  it- 
self seems  to  us  good  and  proper  to  be  done. 
Saul  could  have  urged  all  this  in  reference  to 
his  conduct  in  sparing  Agag  and  the  best  of 
the  cattle  of  the  Amalekites,  and  in  offering 
sacrifices  in  the  absence  of  Samuel.  But  the 
stern  rebuke  of  the  prophet  (1  tSarn.  15  :  22), 
*'  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt 
offerings  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord? 
Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  &c.,'' 
utterly  demolishes  his  plea,  tears  off  his 
flimsy  pretenses  of  respect   to  the  honor  of 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.        18 

God,  and  leaves  his  conduct  naked  and  inex- 
cusable rebellion  instead  of  worship — a  set- 
ting up  of  his  own  will,  if  not  in  opposition 
to,  at  least  in  place  of  the  will  of  God. 

If  therefore  the  object  of  worship  be  pri- 
marily to  please  God,  and  not  ourselves,  and 
if  implicit  obedience  to  his  will  be  more  pleas- 
ing to  him  than  the  most  costly  sacrifices 
which  he  hath  not  prescribed,  then  surely 
the  presentation  of  those  songs  to  him  in 
praise  which  he  himself  hath  given  and  ap- 
pointed for  that  purpose,  must  be  more  pleas- 
ing to  him  than  any  others,  even  though  in 
our  estimation  they  may  be  more  excellent 
and  pleasing,  but  which  he  has  not  prescribed. 
The  former  is  true  worship,  for  it  is  obedi- 
ence to  the  will  of  God,  doing  not  only  what 
he  commands,  but  because  he  commands  it. 
The  latter  is  will-worship — following  our 
own  will  and  pleasure  instead  of  God's  ;  and, 
however  sincere  may  be  our  professed  inten- 
tions to  honor  and  glorify  him,  we  are  con- 
stantly reminded  of  the  fact  that  in  God's 
esteem  ''  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice," 
and  to  the  challenge  ''who  hath  required 
1^ 


14       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

this  at  your  hands  ?  ''  we  must  be  dumb  and 
speechless. 

That  nothing  should  be  used  in  the  formal 
worship  of  God  but  that  which  he  himself 
hath  prescribed  and  appointed  for  that  pur- 
pose we  argue — 

2.  Because  God  claims  it  as  his  preroga- 
tive to  prescribe  the  way  and  weans  of  his 
worship,  and  is  extremely  jealous  of  this 
prerogative.  This  we  might  show  a  priori. 
It  belongs  to  the  Creator,  the  object  of  wor- 
ship, to  prescribe  ;  it  belongs  to  his  creat- 
ures, as  worshipers,  humbly  and  reverently 
to  attend  and  learn  and  receive  whatever  he 
prescribes.  Thus,  in  the  plan  of  salvation, 
it  belongs  to  God,  the  Judge  and  Law-giver, 
who  is  offended,  to  prescribe  the  terms  of 
reconciliation,  the  way  by  which  sinners  may 
be  restored  to  his  favor  and  enjoy  his  fel- 
lowship. Micah  6  :  8 — "  He  hath  showed 
thee,  0  man  what  is  the  good*'  (way).  It 
belongs  to  sinners,  instead  of  striving  to  in- 
vent and  devise  a  plan  of  their  own  for 
answering  the  question,  *'  Wherewith  shall  I 
come  before  the  Lord?"  simply  to  hear  and 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       15 

accept  the  good  way  which  God  hath  devised 
and  proposed  in  the  gospel.  And  nothing 
can  be  more  dishonoring  to  him,  no  matter  on 
what  pretext,  than  for  any  one  to  set  aside 
his  righteousness,  as  the  Jews  did,  and  to  go 
about  to  establish  a  righteousness  of"  their  own 
their  own  way.  The  same  principle  applies 
to  the  means  of  worship.  God  only  knows 
and  can  tell  how  he  is  to  be  acceptably  wor- 
shiped. And  especially  is  this  true  in  the 
matter  of  praise,  where  the  main  object  is  to 
set  forth  and  magnify  the  divine  excellencies 
as  displayed  in  God's  character  and  works. 
Who  but  God  can  tell  what  is  suitable  and 
worthy  of  himself  ?  "  Who  can  by  searching 
find  out  God?"  From  the  very  nature  and 
necessity  of  the  case,  therefore,  we  are  led 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  belongs  to  God  to 
prescribe  the  way  and  manner  in  which  he  is 
to  be  worshiped. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  nothing  more 
clearly  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  or  more 
frequently  asserted  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  than  this  claim  of  God's  exclusive 
prerogative  to  institute  and  appoint  the  forms 


16       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

of  his  worship.  It  is  implied  in  the  second 
precept  of  the  decalogue,  which  '*  requires 
the  receiving,  observing  and  keeping  jowre^nc? 
entire  all  such  religious  worship  and  ordin- 
ances as  God  hath  appointed  in  his  word,"  and 
which  forbids  "  the  worshiping  of  God  by 
images,  or  any  other  way  not  appointed  in  his 
word."  So  when  the  tabernacle  was  to  be 
built ;  "  See,"  saith  he  to  Moses,  "that  thou 
make  all  things  according  to  the  pattern  shown 
thee  in  the  mount."  The  whole  ritual  of 
sacrifice  and  ceremony,  to  its  minutest  detail, 
both  in  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple,  was 
prescribed  by  divine  authority  ;  and  any  de- 
parture from  this  order  was  regarded  by  him 
as  an  infringement  on  his  prerogative,  and 
was  visited  with  the  tokens  of  his  severest 
displeasure.  Thus,  when  Nadab  and  Abihu 
presumed  to  offer  strange  fire — that  is  fire 
not  taken  from  the  altar  of  burnt-offering 
— it  is  said,  "  A  fire  came  out  from  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Lord  and  consumed  them." — Lev. 
10:  1-8.  Surely  it  might  be  asked,  wherein 
had  they  sinned  so  grievously  ?  Is  not  one 
fire  as  good  as  another  ?     But  God  did  not 


An  Ahthorized  Psalmody.        17 

so  regard  it.  He  looked  upon  and  treated 
it  as  contempt  of  his  authority,  an  unwarranted 
invasion  of  his  prerogative.  And  in  this  inci- 
dent he  whose  name  is  Jealous,  and  who  is  a 
jealous  God,  has  written  over  the  door  of  his 
house,  as  in  letters  of  fire,  this  fearful  in- 
scription, '*  I  will  be  sanctified  in  them  that 
come  nigh  me,  and  before  all  the  people  I 
will  be  glorified." 

And  so  throughout  the  Bible  God  has  de- 
clared his  extreme  jealousy  of  this  preroga- 
tive, and  has  once  and  again  appended  his 
solemn  protest  against  either  adding  to  or 
taking  from  his  commandments  and  ordinan- 
ces. Thus,  in  the  organization  of  the  Old 
Testament  Church,  after  having  given  to 
Moses  all  the  directions  respecting  the  regu- 
lation of  his  worship,  he  adds  (Deut.  12  :  32), 
"  What  thing  soever  I  command  you,  observe 
to  do  it;  thou  shall  not  add  thereto  or  di- 
minish from  it."  And  no  less  careful  is  he 
to  guard  the  sacredness  of  this  prerogative 
in  the  New  Testament  Church ;  for,  besides 
our  Lord's  expressed  abhorrence  of  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Pharisees,  whereby  they  made 


18       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

void  the  law  of  God  by  superseding  or  setting 
aside  its  authority,  we  find  at  the  close  of  the 
sacred  canon  the  same  warning  inscription 
over  the  portal  of  the  New  as  over  that  of 
the  Old  Testament  Church  (Rev,  22:  18,  19): 
"If  any  man  shall  add,"  &e.  The  great 
King  and  Head  of  the  Church,  whose  prerog- 
ative it  is,  has  given  a  perfect  and  complete 
rule  of  faith  and  worship,  and  therefore  the 
addition  of  anything  to  that  worship  which  he 
has  not  either  expressly  or  impliedly  appoin- 
ted,on  pretense  of  custom,  usage,  expediency, 
or  any  other  plea,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
taking  away  by  setting  aside  or  habitual 
disuse  and  neglect  of  what  he  has  herein  pre- 
scribed, is  equally  a  daiing  invasion  of  the 
divine  prerogative,  a  reflection  on  the  perfec- 
tion of  divine  wisdom,  and  so  cannot  but  be 
offensive  to  him  who  hath  said  {Isaiah  42  :  8), 
"  My  glory  will  I  not  give  to  another." 

3.  This  positive  divine  authority  and  ap- 
pointment is  necessary  as  the  warrant  and 
foundation  of  a  divine  faith  on  the  part  of 
the  worshiper.  "Without  faith,"  it  is  said 
(Heh.  11 :  6),  "  it  is  impossible  to  please 
God,"  and  [Rom,  14:  23),  "Whatsoever  is 
not  of  faith  is  sin."  Now,  one  essential  ele- 
ment of  this  faith,  which  is  so  necessary  to 
acceptance  with  God  in  every  act  of  worship. 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       19 

is  the  persuasion  or  assurance  of  a  divine 
warrant  for  what  we  are  doing  ;  and  this  can 
only  rest  on  a  divine  institution  or  appoint- 
ment. Thus,  under  the  law  it  was  necessary, 
not  only  that  the  offering  be  perfect  of  its 
kind,  but  that  it  be  the  very  kind  which  God 
had  prescribed.  While  therefore,  the  wor- 
shiper who  brought  the  two  turtle-doves  or 
young  pigeons  could  come  with  the  same  faith 
of  acceptance  as  his  richer  brother  who  brought 
a  kid  or  an  ox,  yet  he  who  brought  the 
most  valuable  and  costly  sacrifices  of  some- 
thing which  was  not  prescribed  could  have 
no  such  confidence.  Now,  praise  is  one  of 
the  sacrifices  we  are  to  offer  in  the  worship 
of  God  under  the  New  Testament  {Heh.  13  : 
16).  When,  therefore  we  bring  a  Psalm, 
or  a  hymn  to  offer  unto  God,  the  very  first  re- 
quisite to  acceptance  is  a  divine  warrant  on 
which  faith  can  rest  and  say,  "  We  bring  to 
thee  that  which  thou  hast  required  and  appoin- 
ted." And  for  this  nothing  less  and  nothing  else 
will  serve  than  a  'positive  divine  appointment, 
either  by  express  Scripture  precept  or  exam- 
ple, or  good  and  necessary  inference  from 
Scripture.  Faith  is  a  positive,  not  a  nega- 
tive exercise,  and  requires  a  positive,  not  a 
negative  authority.  It  will  not  satisfy  such 
a  faith  to  say  that  the  thing  is  not  forbidden, 
2^ 


20      An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

because  to  the  conscience  of  the  believer  the 
very  absence  of  a  divine  appointment  oper- 
ates as  a  prohibition.  And  therefore,  unless 
we  are  prepared  to  accept  the  dogma  of  Pop- 
ery— that  the  authority  of  the  church  as  ex- 
pressed through  Pope  or  council  is  infallible, 
and  so  a  sufficient  foundation  for  the  faith 
and  obedience  of  its  members  (which  it  is 
taken  for  granted  no  Protestant  will  for  a 
moment  admit,  much  less  claim,)  we  are  led 
irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  from  this,  as 
well  as  the  two  preceding  arguments,  that 
nothing  is  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God 
but  that  which  he  himself  hath  instituted  and 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  which  is  our 
major  premise. 

And  now  we  have  a  right  to  demand,  and 
we  are  b(  und  to  demand,  in  reference  to  any 
songs,  whether  inspired  or  uninspired,  which 
are  offered  to  be  employed  in  the  praise  of 
God,  *'  By  what  authority  doest  thou  these 
things,  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority  ?" 
and  to  reject  whatever  cannot  furnish  the 
divine  credentials,  however  highly  recom- 
mended otherwise.  We  are  now  prepared  to 
inquire  what  songs,  if  any,  have  this  divine 
authorization,  which  brings  us  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  second  premise,  viz: 

Minor  Premise — The  songs  contained  in 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       21 

the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  they  only,  have 
been  given  and  appointed  by  God  to  be  used 
in  his  praise. 

It  is  assumed,  or  taken  for  granted,  in  this 
argument,  that  praise  is  an  ordinance  of  di- 
vine worship,  and  that  this  duty  is  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  singing  of  Psalms  and  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs.  It  is  also  admitted  and 
recognized  as  a  necessity  by  all  churches, 
that  a  form  must  be  prepared  beforehand,  in 
which  all  can  join.  However  they  may  dif- 
fer in  regard  to  a  Book  of  Prayer,  yet  all  are 
agreed  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of  a  Book 
of  Praise  or  Hymn-book.  The  only  question 
to  be  settled  is,  how  shall  that  book  be  fur- 
nished ?  Has  God  provided  and  furnished 
such  a  book,  or  has  he  left  each  church  or 
each  age  of  the  church  to  furnish  one  for 
itself?  We  affirm  that  God  has  provided 
and  given  the  Book  of  Psalms  to  be  used  by 
his  church  in  all  ages  to  the  end  of  time, 
and  argue; 

1.  From  the  form  of  these  Psalms  and  the 
title  of  the  book,  which  show  that  it  was 
given  for  this  purpose.  We  need  not  stop 
to  prove  that  this  book  of  Psalms  is  inspired 
that  is  given  by  God  to  his  church ;  its  place 
in  the  sacred  canon  is  sufficient  evidence  of 
this.      True,  language  has  sometimes  been 


22       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

used  respecting  some  of  these  Psalms  incon- 
sistent with  that  reverence  which  is  due  to 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost — the  word  of 
God.  But  such  objections  coming  from  evan- 
gelical Christians  must  either  be  covered  with 
the  mantle  of  that  of  charity  which  "hopeth 
all  things,"  or  treated  as  we  would  any  other 
infidel  objections,  with  which  we  have  nothing 
to  do  in  this  discussion.  If  these  Psalms,  or 
any  of  them,  are  not  the  inspired  word  of 
God,  let  them  be  stricken  from  the  sacred 
canon;  if  they  are  inspired,  let  them  be 
treated,  not  as  the  words  of  David,  or  any 
other  mere  man,  but  as  the  words  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  spake  by  the  mouth  of  these  men. 
The  only  question  with  which  we  have  to  do 
is  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  given. 
In  reference  to  this,  we  affirm  that  they,  in 
common  with  all  Scripture,  are  ''profitable 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction  and 
instruction  in  righteousness,"  etc.  Yet  their 
lyrical  form  and  their  titles— Psalms, 
hymns  and  songs  —  together  with  the 
title  of  the  book,  "Sephir  Tehillim" 
— book  of  praises — sufficiently  indicate  their 
specific  design  to  be  sung,  and  sung  in  the 
praise  of  God.  Indeed,  this  is  admitted  by 
all  commentators  of  any  standing.  Among 
the  many  which  might  be  quoted,  we  have 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       23 

space  only  for  the  testimony  of  the  late  Dr. 
Addison  Alexander,  in  the  preface  to  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Book  of  Psalms,  vol.  I,  page 
7:  *' These  hundred  and  fifty  independent 
pieces,  different  as  they  are,  have  this  in 
common,  that  they  aie  all — 

1.  Poetical;  not  merely  imaginative  and  ex- 
pressive of  feeling,  but  stamped  externally 
with  that  peculiar  character  of  parallelism 
which  distinguishes  the  higher  style  of  He- 
brew composition  from  ordinary  prose.  A 
still  more  marked  resemblance  is  that  they 
are  all  not  only  poetical,  but — 

2.  Lyrical,  i.  g.,  songs,  poems,  intended  to 
be  sung^  and  with  a  musical  accompaniment. 

3.  They  are  all  religious  lyrics^  even  those 
which  seem  at  first  sight  the  most  secular 
in  theme  and  spirit,  but  which  are  all  found, 
on  inquiry,  to  be  strongly  expressive  of  re- 
ligious feeling. 

4.  They  are  all  ecclesiastical  lyrics, 
Psalms  or  hymns,  intended  to  he  perma- 
nently used  in  public  worship^  not  except- 
ing those  which  bear  the  clearest  impress 
of  original  connection  with  the  social,  do- 
mestic, or  personal  relations  and  experience 
of  the  writers."  This  testimony,  with  which 
all  other  commentators  agree,  is  conclusive, 
and  will  not  be  gainsayed.  These  Psalms,  and 


24       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

all  of  them,  were  given,  in  the  words  of 
Barnes,  "to  be  sung,  not  read,"  and  "in- 
tended to  be  permanently  used  in  public  wor- 
ship."    But — 

2.  We  argue  the  same  from  the  history  of 
their  use  with  divine  approval  in  the  Old 
Testament  Church.  This  appears  not  only 
from  the  inscriptions  directed  to  the  chief 
musician,  showing  that  they  were  composed 
not  for  private  but  for  general  use,  but 
also  from  the  express  testimony  of  the  sacred 
history  contained  in  the  books  of  the  Chroni- 
cles of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel.  We 
shall  only  refer  to  the  passages  without 
quoting  them  at  length — I.  Chron.  16  :  7  ;  II. 
Chron.  29  :  25-30.  From  these  and  others 
which  might  be  quoted  we  are  warranted  to 
infer  that  this  was  the  original  design  of 
God  in  giving  them,  and  that  they  were  so 
regarded  and  treated  by  the  church  of  that 
day  down  to  the  time  of  the  captivity. 
After  that  they  were  collected  into  a  book 
and  placed  in  the  sacred  canon  by  the  same 
authority  as  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament— whether  by  the  hands  of  Ezra, 
which  is  most  probable,  or  of  some  other 
person  unknown,  matters  not  to  the  argu- 
ment. Besides  the  testimony  of  the  Jews, 
particularly  in  the  Septuagint  translation, 
we   have   the    conclusive   testimony   of  the 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       25 

Saviour  and  his  apostles  that  they  continued 
to  be  received  and  used  as  a  book  of  praises 
down  to  their  day. 

But  were  these  the  only  ones  that  were 
given  for  this  purpose  ?  We  answer,  yes. 
Because — 1.  No  mention  is  made  of  any 
others  having  been  used  in  the  regular  and 
permanent  worship  of  God ;  and  2.  What- 
ever others  were  used  occasionally  even  in 
the  worship  of  God,  as  the  song  of  Habak- 
kuk,  were  not  designed  for  general  use,  else 
they  would  have  been  put  into  this  divine 
collection. 

We  are,  therefore,  warranted  in  the  con- 
clusion that  the  songs  contained  in  the  Book 
of  Psalms,  and  they  only,  were  given  and 
appointed  by  God  to  be  used  in  his  worship 
in  the  Old  Testament  Church.  It  remains 
only  to  show  the  authority  for  their  use  in 
the  New  Testament  Church,  and  this  we 
argue — 

1.  From  their  adaptation  for  use  under 
the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  or  even  better 
than  under  the  Old.  They  are  moral,  not 
typical ;  spiritual,  not  carnal ;  evangelical, 
full  of  Christ  and  his  gospel,  and  highly  de- 
votional. The  truth  is,  that  if  they  were 
adapted  for  use  under  the  Old  Testament, 
they  are  much  more  suitable  now ;  for  much 


26       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

,  of  the  language  employed  in  them  respect- 
ing Christ  and  his  kingdom  must  have  con- 
veyed but  a  dim  and  shadowy  meaning  to 
Old  Testament  saints.  But  in  the  clearer 
light  of  the  New  Testament  these  shadows 
disappear,  and  the  rich,  golden  truths  con- 
tained in  these  Psalms  shine  forth  with  a 
beauty  and  splendor  which  delight  the  eye 
and  ravish  the  heart  of  every  enlightened 
student  and  lover  of  God's  word.  We  might 
fill  pages  with  the  glowing  eulogies  pro- 
nounced by  poets,  scholars  and  divines,  in- 
deed by  all  who  have  written  on  the  Psalms, 
who  can  find  no  language  sufficiently  strong 
to  express  their  admiration  of  their  beauties 
and  excellencies,  not  simply  as  compositions, 
but  as  lyrics  adapted  to  all  the  purposes  of 
praise,  whether  in  showing  forth  the  divine 
glory  and  perfections  as  manifested  in  the 
works  of  creation,  providence  and  redemp- 
tion, or  in  giving  expression  to  every  variety 
of  devotional  feeling  which  corresponds  to 
the  utmost  range  of  Christian  experience, 
in  the  church  and  individual,  down  to  the 
latest  ages.  The  more  they  are  known,  and  the 
better  they  are  understood,  the  more  highly 
they  are  appreciated,  and  "  the  more  trans- 
cendent," in  the  words  of  Milton,  "  does  their 


An  AuTHOEizED  Psalmody.       27 

superiority  appear  over  all  other  lyrical  com- 
positions whatsoever."  If  their  use  is  not 
continued  in  the  New  Testament  Church  it 
certainly  is  not  for  want  of  suitableness  and 
adaptation.  Why  they  are  not  used,  why 
they  are  superseded  by  compositions  confes- 
sedly so  far  inferior,  even  by  those  who  thus 
eulogize  their  superiority,  is  a  mystery  which 
remains,  and  must  remain,  unexplained. 
But— 

2.  Their  divine  appointment  has  neither 
terminated  nor  been  abrogated  or  set  aside 
under  the  New  Testament.  Though  used  in 
connection  with  instruments  and  sacrifices  in 
the  temple  service,  yet  all  are  agreed  that  the 
singing  of  Psalms  belongs  to  the  moral  wor- 
ship of  God,  the  obligation  of  which  did  not 
cease  with  the  comino^  of  Christ  and  the  de- 
struction  of  the  temple,  as  did  the  use  of  in- 
struments and  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  which 
needed  no  re-enactment,  but,  unless  expressly 
abrogated  by  divine  authority,  passed  over 
into  the  New  Testament  Church  by  virtue  of 
their  original  appointment.  At  all  events, 
whatever  difference  of  views  there  may  be  in 
regard  to  the  use  of  instruments,  yet  the  duty 
of  singing  in  the  worship  of  God  is  univer- 
sally recognized  and  practiced  by  the  Church 
to  this  day.     The  only  question  to  be  settled 


28       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

is,  What  is  to  be  sung  1  Has  the  divine 
appointinent  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  as  the 
matter  of  the  Church's  praise  terminated — 
been  abrogated  or  superseded  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  others  ? 

We  have  already  seen  that  it  has  not  ter- 
minated, because  these  Psalms  are  neither 
typical,  ceremonial  nor  symbolical,  but  be- 
ing moral  and  spiritual,  are  even  better  adap- 
ted to  the  present  than  to  the  former  dispen- 
sation. Indeed  this  is  nov^  generally  ad- 
mitted, and  has  been  from  the  first,  byjthe  use 
of  them  in  the  Church  from  the  earliest  ages, 
and  more  especially  since  the  Reformation. 
We  might  have  said,  their  exclusive  use  by 
the  purest  Reformed  Churches  down  to  a 
comparatively  recent  period;  but  this  is  not 
necessary  to  our  argument,  as  we  only  wish 
to  show  that  their  continued  obligation,  or  at 
least  the  propriety  of  theiruse,  has  been  uni- 
versally admitted  even  by  those  Churches 
which  have  practically  set  them  aside,  and 
this  admission  brings  them  under  the  opera- 
tion of  our  first  premise  which  excludes  all 
others  that  have  not  equal  authority  for  their 
use.  But  in  addition  to  this  we  affirm  that 
their  appointment,  instead  of  being  abrog;i- 
^ed,  has  been  endorsed  and  repeated  by  our 
Saviour  and  his  apostles,  both  by  example  and 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       29 

precept.  That  the  hymn  or  Psalm  which 
was  sung  by  the  Lord  and  his  disciples  be- 
fore going  to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  on  that 
memorable  night  when  he  instituted  the  Lord's 
Supper,  was  one  or  more  of  these  songs  (Ps. 
113-118)  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt, 
and  this  is  almost  universally  admitted  by 
commentators.  Equally  plain  and  clear  is  it 
that  the  direction  given  by  Paul  to  the  Ephe- 
sians  and  Colossians  to  "sing  Psalms  and 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  "apply,  at  least  in 
part,  to  the  Book  of  Psalms.  We  do  not  now 
raise  the  question  in  regard  to  the  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs  there  mentioned,  we  shall  notice 
that  again;  but  all  are  agreed  that  by  Psalms  are 
meant  those  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms. 
Here  then  we  have  express  authority  in  the 
New  Testament  by  example  and  precept  for 
the  continued  use  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  in 
the  worship  of  God.  Whatever  else  is  de- 
nied, there  is,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  we 
have  a  divine  warrant  and  authority  for 
singing  the  Psalms,  and  all  of  them,  in  the 
worship  of  God,  now  as  well  as  under  the 
Old  Testament.  In  the  words  of  our  Dec- 
laration, "It  is  the  will  of  God  that  the 
songs,"  &c. 

If  this  be  so,  then  those   who  sing  these 
Psalms  are  using  this  book  in    obedience   to 


BO       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

the  command  of  God,  and  for  the  very  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  confessedly  given — 
*' to  be  sung,  not  read."  Those  who  refuse 
or  neglect  to  do  so  are  chargeable  with  disre- 
garding a  plain  command  of  God  to  sing 
Psalms.  Whether  they  are  right  or  wrong 
in  singing  hymns,  they  are  clearly  and  con- 
fessedly wrong  in  habitually  omitting  to  use 
the  Psalms ;  for  when  the  command  of  God 
is  interposed  there  is  no  room  for  liberty. 
Omission  or  neglect  of  performance  is  as 
truly  disobedience  as  positive  transgres- 
sion. 

Here  we  might  safely  rest  the  argument. 
We  have  shown  the  authority  and  warrant 
for  the  use  of  the  Book  of  Psalms  in  the 
praise  of  God,  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments.  If  authority  is  claimed  for 
using  any  other,  we  have  a  right — nay,  we 
are  bound — to  demand  that  it  be  shown  by 
positive  appointment  of  God,  either  expressed 
or  implied  ;  and  until  this  is  done  such  songs, 
whether  inspired  or  uninspired,  are  excluded 
from  the  formal  worship  of  God  on  the  prin- 
ciple laid  down  and  established  in  the  major 
premise.  Here  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on 
those  who  introduce  something  beside  or  in 
addition  to  what  we  have  proved  to  be  given 
by  Divine  appointment;  and  we  are   safe  in 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       31 

affirming  that  such  proof  has  not  and  can 
not  be  furnished.  But  waiving  this  for  the 
present,  we  shall  endeavor  to  demonstrate  the 
negative  of  our  proposition,  viz.,  that  no 
others  have  been  given  or  authorized  under 
the  New  Testament.  Our  argument  may  be 
stated  thus  : 

Major  Premise — If  any  such  songs  have 
been  given  for  use  in  the  New  Testament 
Church,  they  must  have  been  furnished  either 
by  our  Saviour  and  his  inspired  apostles  or 
by  some  one  specially  commissioned  and  in- 
spired for  this  purpose. 

Minor  Premise — No  such  songs  have  been 
thus  furnished. 

Ergo — No  other  songs  than  those  already 
given  have  divine  authority  for  their  use. 

In  support  of  the  first  position  we  offer  the 
following  : 

1.  Nothing  less  than  supernatural  in- 
spiration is  requisite  to  furnish  songs  of 
praise  for  the  Church  of  God.  We  have 
hitherto  laid  little  stress  on  the  inspiration  of 
the  Psalms,  because,  as  stated  in  the  outset, 
the  question  is  not,  primarily  nor  principally, 
one  of  inspired  or  uninspired,  but  of  an  au- 
thorized or  unauthorized  Psalmody.  But  at 
this  point  the  fact  of  inspiration  becomes  a 
conclusive  argument  in  favor  of  the  Book  of 


32       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

Psalms  as  against  all  compositions  of  unin- 
spired men,  because  such  inspiration  is  indis- 
pensably requisite  to  the  making  of  songs  of 
praise,  both  from  the  nature  of  the  case  and 
from  the  fact  that  God  has  seen  fro^er  to 
give  such  an  inspired  book.     We  affirm : 

I.  That  supernatural  inspiration  is  indis- 
pensably requisite  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  case.  It  has  already  been  observed  that 
a  liturgy  or  form  of  praise  is  a  necessity  felt 
and  acknowledged  by  all ;  for,  unlike  prayer, 
it  is  an  exercise  in  which  all  unite  in  singing 
the  same  songs.  And  these  songs  must  be 
prepared  beforehand  and  adapted  to  the  vast 
multitudes  of  worshipers  in  the  different 
places  and  ages  of  the  church,  with  all  their 
diversified  circumstances  and  wants  as 
churches  and  individuals.  While,  therefore, 
it  might  be  possible  for  one  in  ten  thousand 
to  compose  hymns  for  their  own  use  (though 
even  this  is  not  admitted,)  who  but  God,  or 
one  inspired  by  God,  can  furnish  hymns  for 
the  Church  ?  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that 
the  main  object  of  praise  is  to  declare  and 
magnify  the  excellencies  of  the  divine  charac- 
ter, as  well  as  to  give  expression  to  every  va- 
riety of  devotional  feeling  which  the  contem- 
plation of  these  perfections  is  designed  te 
quicken  and  call  forth.    Such  a  task  requires  a 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       33 

perfection  of  knowledge  of  God  and  human- 
ity which  is  beyond  the  natural  capacity  of 
the  highest  angel,  much  more  of  such  ignor- 
ant, fallible  men  as  the  best  of  God's  saints 
are  even  when  enlightened  by  the  word  and 
ordinary  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God — as 
much  beyond  their  ability  as  the  writing  of 
one  of  the  epistles  or  other  books  of  the  Bi- 
ble would  be.  "  What  man  knoweth  the 
things  of  a  man  save  the  spirit  of  man 
which  is  in  him  ?  Even  so  the  things  of  God 
knoweth  no  man  but  the  Spirit  of  God  " — 
because  the  Spirit,  and  he  only,  "  searcheth 
all  things,  even  the  deep  things  of  God." 
Now,  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  we  have  a  col- 
lection of  songs  which  has  stood  the  test  of 
ages  and  centuries,  which  Christians  all  over 
the  world  and  in  all  ages  have  found  from 
comfortable  experience  to  be  admirably 
adapted  to  nil  the  ends  for  which  such  a  book 
is  needed — a  collection  complete  as  a  whole 
and  perfect  in  all  its' parts,  without  a  mistake 
or  error  in  doctrine  or  sentiment,  without  a 
defect  in  style  or  expression — and  why  ? 
Because  it  is  the  work,  not  of  David  or 
Asaph,  of  John  or  of  Paul,  but  of  the  om- 
niscient, all-wise,  infinitely  perfect  Spirit  of 
God  himself,  who  alone  knoweth  the  things 
of  God  and  the  things  ot  man,  and  so  how 


34       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

to  praise  the  one  and  express  the  feelings  of 
the  other.  If  space  permitted,  we  could 
show,  what  any  one  can  ascertain  for  himself 
by  an  examination  of  this  matchless  book, 
how  in  these  one  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms 
is  comprised  all  that  is  elsewhere  revealed — 
of  the  character  and  perfections  of  God,  in 
the  relation  of  the  three  persons  of  the  God- 
head to  each  other,  in  his  relations  to  man 
in  the  works  of  creation,  providence  and  re- 
demption ;  everything  respecting  the  person 
and  work  of  Christ,  his  life,  death,  resurrec- 
tion, ascension,  his  kingdom  and  glory,  his 
second  coming  and  the  final  judgment ;  all  that 
relates  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  the  appli- 
cation of  redemption,  and  all  that  relates  to 
the  experience  of  men  as  sinners  saved  by 
grace;  in  a  word,  an  epitome  of  the  Bible 
itself,  and  of  that  Bible  in  its  results  as 
written  in  human  history  and  human  experi- 
ence. Even  among  the  books  of  the  Bible 
it  is  a  non-such.  Who  can  imitate  it  ?  Who 
can  excel  it?  Who  can  equal  it?  Who, 
unless  one  inspired  as  David  was — the  sweet 
Psalmist  of  Israel — who  could  say,  "  The 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  spake  by  me,  and  his 
word  was  in  my  tongue."  Surely  the  con- 
clusion is  irresistible:  None  but  an  inspired 
man — and  we  used  the  word  inspired  in  its 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       35 

highest  sense — is  competent  to  furnish  a 
Psalmody  for  the  Church  of  God  to-day  any 
more  than  in  Old  Testament  times — may 
we  not  say,  much  less  competent  now  than 
then  f     But  the  same  conclusion  follows — ■ 

2.  From  the  fact  that  God  did  deem  it 
necessary  to  raise  up  and  inspire  men  to  pre- 
pare a  Booh  of  Fsalms  for  his  Church.  It 
is  a  maxim  the  force  of  which  even  a 
heathen  could  appreciate,  "never  introduce 
a  god  except  upon  an  adequate  occasion." 
If  a  book  of  Psalms  could  have  been  given 
without  inspiration,  we  may  be  sure  that  God 
would  not  have  inspired  men  to  do  it;  for  he 
never  interposes  in  a  supernatural  manner 
without  necessity  or  sufficient  reason. 
When  Christ  was  on  earth  he  never,  so  far 
as  the  record  shows,  cured  a  disease  by  a 
miracle  which  could  have  been  cured  by 
ordinary  means.  When  he  raised  up  Laza- 
rus from  the  dead,  he  exerted  his  divine 
power  only  in  doing  what  could  not  be  done 
by  human  agency.  When  the  stone  was  to 
be  rolled  away  and  the  living  man  was  to  be 
unbound,  he  said  to  those  who  stood  by, 
''  Roll  away  the  stone — loose  him  and  let 
him  go."  It  was  only  when  the  dead  corpse 
was  to  be  quickened  with  renewed  life  that 


36       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

he  spake  the  words  of  divine  power,  "  Laza- 
rus, come  forth."  I^ow,  if  God  has  given  to 
his  Church  a  manual  of  praise  by  a  super- 
natural inspiration,  the  inference  is  more 
than  presumptive ;  it  is  fair  and  legitimate, 
that  nothing  less  than  this  is  requisite  for 
that  purpose.  Thus  we  are  led  to  the  same 
conclusion  both  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  from  the  fact  that  God  has  deemed  such 
inspiration  necessary.  Inspired  songs  we 
must  have.  Nothing  else  and  nothing  less 
will  serve  the  purpose. 

The  only  question  which  remains  to  an- 
swer is,  have  any  such  been  given  to  the  New 
Testament  Church  ?  If  so,  when  and  by 
whom  ?     This  brings  us  to  the 

Second  Premise.  No  such  songs  have  been 
given  either  by  the  Saviour  or  his  inspired 
apostles  and  prophets;  nor  is  there  any 
promise  of  inspiration  or  authority  given 
to  any  one  to  prepare  such  songs.  That 
Christ  or  his  apostles  have  furnished  such  a 
book  or  any  additional  songs  to  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  will  not,  I  suppose,  be  asserted.  If 
they  did  prepare  and  use  such  themselves, 
we  have  no  record  of  it,  and  there  is  no  trace 
of  them  now ;  they  are  lost  and  their  place 
cannot  be  supplied.  But  is  there  no  promise 
or  authority  given  to  the  Church  to  supply 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       37 

this  supposed  want  which  the  Saviour  and 
his  apostles  failed  to  supply  ?  No,  none 
whatever  !  We  have  many  promises  of  the 
assistance  of  the  Spirit  in  making  our  own 
prayers  and  in  leading  the  prayers  of  others, 
but  nowhere  throughout  the  whole  "New  Tes- 
tament a  single  promise  or  the  slightest  hint 
of  any  such  promise  for  making  our  own 
hymns,  much  less  the  songs  of  the  Church. 
We  have  the  command  to  "sing  psalms, 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs" — none  to  make 
them.  There  is  ample  authority  for  using 
those  then  in  existence — not  a  particle  for 
bringing  into  existence  any  others. 

Again,  when  Jesus  "  ascended  on  high  and 
received  gifts  for  men,"  he  bestowed  upon 
the  Church  all  the  gifts  necessary  for  her 
edification  to  the  end  of  time.  But  among 
all  these  mentioned  (Eph.  4  :  11 ;  I.  Oor.  12  : 
8-11,  28)  we  look  in  vain  for  the  gift  of  a 
Psalmist  or  the  spirit  of  Psalmody,  and  yet, 
as  we  have  seen,  if  songs  of  praise  other 
than  or  in  addition  to  those  already  in  her 
possession,  were  to  be  given  to  the  Church, 
such  a  gift  was  absolutely  necessary.  That  no 
such  gift  was  either  bestowed  or  promised  by 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church  is  conclusive 
demonstration  that  no  others  were  needed. 
We  are  constrained,  therefore,  to  say  what  to 


38       An  Authorized  Psalmqdy. 

some  may  appear  harsh,  but  what  we  think 
truth  justifies  us  in  saying,  and  even  requires 
to  be  said,  that  tvhoever  undertakes  to  pre- 
pare songs  of  praise  to  be  used  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God  in  addition  to  or  in  place  of 
those  which  God  has  given,  not  only  does  so 
without  warrant  and  authority  from  Christ, 
but  thereby  arrogates  to  himself  the  power 
and  prerogatives  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and 
presumes  to  do  that  which  none  but  one  super- 
naturally  endowed  by  inspiration  is  compe- 
tent to  do — an  arrogance  and  presumption 
which  might  well  make  one  shudder.  Is  not, 
then,  the  conclusion  at  which  we  have  been 
aiming  all  but  irresistible  :  iVo  other  songs 
but  those  contained  in  the  Book  of  Psalms 
have  been  provided  by  divine  authority  either 
in  the  Old  or  Netv  Testament,  and,  there- 
fore, all  others  by  tuhomsoever  else  provided 
are  excluded. 

We  have  space  only  for  a  brief  notice  of 
those  two  passages  in  the  Epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  Colossians,  where  direction  is 
given  to  sing  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  as 
well  as  Psalms,  which  furnish  the  only  plau- 
sible objection  against  our  argument  from  a 
scriptural  basis  and  in  favor  of  the  use  of 
uninspired  hymns  and  songs.     Besides  what 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       39 

we  have  already  said  in  relation  to  these  pas- 
sages as  furnishing  authority  in  the  New 
Testament  for  the  use  of  Psalms,  it  is  only 
necessary  farther  to  observe — 

1.  That  the  very  language  implies  that 
these  hymns  and  songs  were  then  in  existence 
and  familiar  to  those  to  whom  the  apostle 
wrote.  Where  are  they  to  be  found  if  not  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms  ? 

2.  There  is  here  no  authority  to  make 
hymns  and  songs,  but  only  to  use  those  al- 
ready made,  and  yet  it  is  this  very  authority 
for  making  which  it  is  necessary  to  find. 

3.  These  very  titles,  and  all  of  them  are 
found  in  the  Book  of  Psalms,  the  only  ones 
known  to  be  in  existence  at  that  time. 

4.  If  any  others  were  in  existence  and  in 
use  in  the  Church  they  must  have  been  in- 
spired as  we  have  seen,  and  if  so,  they  are 
now  lost  and  there  is  no  authority  here  or 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  to  supply 
their  place  or  to  use  those  which  are  not  in- 
spired. 

5.  That  inspired  songs  are  referred  to  is 
evident  from  the  word  spiritual^  which  is  no- 
where applied  in  the  New  Testament  but  to 
that  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author. 

6.  They  are  to  be  used  as  a  means  of 
"being   filled   with   the   spirit" — to   which 


40       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

end  the  words  of  inspiration  are  peculiarly 
adapted. 

7.  We  are  to  sing  them  as  a  means  of 
letting  the  "  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  us 
richly" — language  which  will  apply  more 
appropriately  to  that  Book  of  Psalms,  which 
are  all  the  word  of  Christ,  and  which  are  full 
of  Christ,  than  to  any  human  composition 
whatsoever. 

For  a  more  extended  and  exhaustive  ex- 
egesis and  discussion  of  these  two  passages 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  admirable  re- 
marks of  Dr.  Cooper  contained  in  the  "  True 
Psalmody,"  page  73  and  onward,  of  which 
these  seven  points  are  a  brief  outline  taken 
from  the  Argument  and  Illustration  of  the 
Testimony. 

From  these  considerations,  therefore,  we 
are  warranted  in  viewing  these  passages  as 
furnishing  strong  corroborative  evidence  in 
favor  of  instead  of  against  our  position,  con- 
taining as  they  do  an  apostolic  injunction  to 
praise  God  by  means  of  those  "Psalms, 
liymns  and  spiritual  songs  "  which  he  him- 
self had  given  to  the  Church,  and  which,  so 
far  as  we  know,  were  the  only  ones  then  in 
existence. 

We  have  now  finished  our  argument,  and 
shown  a  scriptural  warrant  for  our  position 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       41 

viz  :  it  is  the  will  of  God  as  indicated  in  his 
word,  that  the  songs  contained  in  the  Book 
of  Psalms,  and  they  only,  should  be  used  in 
his  formal  worship.  We  have  carefully 
avoided  all  side  issues  and  arguments  ad 
hominem,  and  confined  our  attention  exclu- 
sively to  the  Scripture  as  the  sole  and  suf- 
ficient arbiter  on  this  subject.  All  the  ques- 
tions of  history,  of  experience,  or  of  expedi- 
ency, are  subordinate  to  this  fundamental 
inquiry,  what  is  the  will  of  God  ?  And  as 
we  said  before,  so  now  we  say  again,  when 
this  is  settled  satisfactorily  to  the  conscience 
of  the  Church,  there  will  be  little  difficulty 
in  adjusting  these  others  and  determining 
the  place  of  other  sacred  songs  and  their 
proper  use.  That  ''the  devotional  composi- 
tions of  uninspired  men"  have  their  proper 
use  and  place  cannot  and  will  not  be  denied. 
It  is  their  improper  use  and  the  putting  of 
them  in  place  of  God's  songs  in  his  worship 
— in  singing  his  praise — which  we  oppose, 
and  which  has  caused  the  disturbance  and 
division  in  the  Church  of  God.  Let  us  all 
go  back  to  the  ground  occupied  by  our  fathers 
in  the  purest  times  of  the  Reformation,  and 
allow  nothing  to  have  place  in  the  worship  of 
God,  but  that  which  has  the  positive  sanction 
of  his  authority,  either  by  expres3  Scripture 


42       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

precept  or  example,  or  by  good  and  necessary 
inference  from  it.  Let  this  be  done,  and  it 
will  not  be  long  till  these  divinely  prepared 
and  appointed  Psalms  will  again  occupy  their 
appropriate  place  in  the  worship  of  God,  as 
in  the  best  days  and  purest  Churches  of  the 
Reformation  and  the  whole  Church  of  God 
once  more  ''^  with  a  voice  together  sing.'' 
May  the  Lord  hasten  it  in  his  time ! 

In  order  to  present  the  argument  in  one 
view,  I  offer  the  following 

RECAPITULATION. 

First  Premise — That  only  is  to  be  used  in 
the  formal  worship  of  God  which  he  hath 
appointed  for  that  purpose. 

Second  Premise — The  songs  contained  in 
the  Book  of  Psalms,  and  they  only,  have 
been  given  and  appointed  by  God  to  be  used 
in  singing  his  praise. 

Ergo — In  singing  his  praise,  these  only 
should  be  used;  or,  "it  is  the  will  of  God 
that  the  songs,"  etc. 

That  nothing  should  be  used  in  his  worship 
but  that  which  he  hath  appointed,  we  argue — 

1.  Because  obedience  to  the  will  of  God 
belongs  to  the  essence  of  worship. 

2.  God  claims  this  as  his  prerogative  to 


An  Authorized  Psalmody.       48 

prescribe  the  manner  and  means  of  his  wor- 
ship, and  is  extremely  jealous  of  this  pre- 
rogative. 

3.  Because  this  positive  divine  authority 
and  appointment  is  necessary  as  the  warrant 
and  foundation  of  that  divine  faith,  "  with- 
out which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God." 

That  the  songs  contained  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  and  they  only,  have  this  divine 
authority  and  appointment,  we  argue — 

1.  From  the  very  form  of  the  Psalms, 
as  "  religious,  ecclesiastical  lyrics,"  design- 
ed to  be  "  sung,  not  read,"  and  from  the 
name  of  the  book,  "  Tehillim  " — book  of 
praises. 

2.  That  they  were  so  used  with  divine 
approval  in  the  Old  Testament  Church 
down  to  the  time  of  our  Saviour. 

3.  That  their  collection  into  a  book,  and 
their  place  in  the  sacred  canon,  is  sanctioned 
by  his  authority. 

4.  That  this  appointment  did  not  termi- 
nate, but  passed  over  into  the  New*  Testa- 
ment Church,  unless  expressly  abrogated 
or  superseded. 

5.  That  instead  of  being  abrogated,  their 
use  was  expressly  sanctioned  and  enjoined 
by  our  Saviour  and  his  apostles. 

6.  That  they  have  not  been  superseded 


44       An  Authorized  Psalmody. 

by  others;  because — (I)  our  Saviour  and 
his  inspired  apostles  have  left  no  others; 
nor  (2)  has  any  promise  or  authority  been 
given  in  the  New  Testament  to  prepare  any 
other;  (3)  nor  is  there  any  mention  of  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody ;  and  yet  (4) 
such  a  spirit  of  inspiration  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  preparation  of  such  songs 
of  praise,  both  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
and  from  the  fact  that  God  saw  fit  to  in- 
spire men  to  furnish  such  songs,  which  he 
would  not  have  done  had  it  not  been  neces- 
sarv. 


United  Presbvteuian   Board  of  Fublicatiox, 
53  &  55  Ninth   St.,  Pittsbubgh. 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  01131  0382 


DATE  DUE 

^_^,^,^--^- 

"    ~ 

' 

HIGHSMITH  #^ 

*5230 

Prir.te<l 
in  USA 

